,  ,,.;c.;^..r  ls-,r,^s 


'.-■.  ;    "'-> 


k« 


ES 


■ 

Eliiiii 


HISTORf 


THE    HANDBOOK    SERIES 


A  LEAGUE  OF  NATIONS 


THE  HANDBOOK  SERIES 


Agricultural  Credit 
Americanization,  $1.50 
European  War.    Vol.  I 
European  War.    Vol.  II 
League  of  Nations,  2d  ed. ,  $1.50 
Prison  Reform 
Russia,  $1.50 
Short  Ballot 
Socialism 
Vocational  Education 


Each  volume,  except  as  otherwise  noted, 
$1.25  net 


THE     HANDBOOK     SERIES 


SELECTED  ARTICLES  ON 

A  League  of  Nations 


Compiled  by 

EDITH  M.  PHELPS 


Second  Edition,  Revised  and  Enlarged 


THE  H.  W.  WILSON  COMPANY 

NEW  YORK 

1919 


, 


6^ 


Published  December,   1918 
Second  Edition,  February,  1919 

HISTORY  I 


EXPLANATORY    NOTE 


This  volume,  true  to  the  purpose  of  the  Series,  is  not  in- 
tended as  propaganda  in  favor  of  a  league  of  nations,  nor  to 
oppose  it;  but  to  reflect  as  impartially  as  may  be,  the  develop- 
ment and  present  status  of  the  idea,  and  the  arguments  against 
it  as  well  as  those  in  favor.  The  articles  reprinted  are  ar- 
ranged to  set  forth,  first  of  all,  President  Wilson's  conception  of 
a  league  of  nations  as  outlined  in  his  recent  papers  and  ad- 
dresses, the  historical  background,  the  development  of  the  idea 
to  date  and  the  movements  to  advance  it,  with  endorsements  of 
the  idea  from  leading  men  and  organizations.  This  is  followed 
by  a  general  discussion  where  appear  the  arguments  in  favor  of 
a  league  of  nations,  the  objections  to  it  and  the  difficulties  that 
lie  in  the  way  of  its  realization.  A  selected  bibliography  is  in- 
cluded for  the  convenience  of  any  who  may  wish  to  pursue  the 
subject  beyond  the  limits  of  this  volume.  E.  M.  Phelps. 

December  6,  1918. 


EXPLANATORY  NOTE  FOR 
SECOND  EDITION 

Much  has  been  said  and  written  about  a  league  of  nations  in 
the  short  interval  that  has  elapsed  since  the  publication  of  the 
first  edition  of  this  Handbook.  Consequently,  many  new  refer- 
ences are  included  in  this  new  edition,  and  a  number  of  recent 
articles  have  been  reprinted.  Occasionally,  articles  appearing  in 
the  first  edition  have  been  replaced  by  later  ones,  but,  for  the 
most  part,  the  new  articles  have  been  placed  in  a  separate  divi- 
sion, at  the  end  of  the  volume.  The  new  references  have  been 
grouped  separately  also,  so  that  they  may  be  more  easily  avail- 
able to  the  reader.  Such  changes  and  additions  have  been  made 
in  the  introductory  matter  as  were  necessary  to  bring  the  in- 
formation down  to  date.  E.  M.  Phelps. 

January   24,    1919. 


CONTENTS 

Bibliography 

Bibliographies    xi 

Books,  Pamphlets  and  Documents   xii 

Periodical  References    xvi 

Supplementary  Bibliography  for  Second  Edition xxix 

Organizations    xxxv 

Introduction  i 

A  League  of  Nations  as  Advocated  by  Woodrow  Wilson  5 

The  Historical  Background 

Phillips,  Walter  Alison.    Historical  Survey  of  Projects  of 

Universal  Peace 15 

Snead-Cox,  J.  G.    The  Holy  Alliance   Living  Age  23 

Dennis,   William   C.      William     Penn's    Plan    for  World 

Peace  

..Proceedings,  American  Society  of  International  Law  25 

Stowell,  Ellery  C.     A  League  of  Nations Nation  26 

Mead,  Lucia  Ames.   The  Hague  and  Peace  Conferences 28 

-Our  Arbitration  Treaties ...A  League  of  Nations  31 

Organized  Effort  to  Promote  a  League  of  Nations 
Levermore,  Charles  H.     American  Constructive  Proposals 

for  International  Justice   World  Court  39 

Keeping  the  World  Safe:  The  Preamble  and  Proposals  of 

the  League  to  Enforce  Peace  41 

Victory  Program  of  the  League  to  Enforce  Peace 43 

League     of     Free     Nations     Association :     Statement     of 

Principles    Survey  45 

The  League  of  Nations  Society 48 

British  League  of  Free  Nations  Association . . .  World  Court  49 

The  League  of  Nations  Union  49 

French  League  of  Nations  Society League  Bulletin  51 


viii  CONTENTS 

Buisson,  Ferdinand.    Appeal  to  Form  a  French  Society  of 

Nations   World  Court  51 

Aim  of  the  Association 54 

A  League  of  Nations   New  Statesman  55 

A  League  of  Nations  Endorsed 

Governments  Pledge  Support  to  a  League  of  Nations 59 

Men  and  Organizations  Endorse  a  League  of  Nations  63 

Legislative  Resolutions   74 

Discussion 

Goldsmith,  Robert.     The  Foundations  of  a  Lasting  Peace 

Bookman      79 

*  Grey,  Viscount,  of  Falloden.   A  League  of  Nations 86 

Brailsford,  H.  N.    The  League  of  Nations ..  English  Review      93 
Wells,  H.  G.     The  League  of  Free  Nations   

Saturday  Evening  Post    101 

A  League  of  Nations  New  Statesman    108 

Overstreet,  Harry  Allen.    What  a  League  of  Nations  Shall 

Be 123 

Van  Hise,  Charles  R.    A  League  of  Nations  133 

Inter-Allied  Labour  and  Socialist  Conference.     Memoran- 
dum on  War  Aims   London  Times    139 

Tead,  Ordway.    Labor  and  the  League  of  Nations 

International  Conciliation     147 

Kallen,  Horace  Meyer.     The  Structure  of  Lasting  Peace 

Dial     154 

Thomas,  Albert.    The  League  of  Nations  

Atlantic  Monthly     160 

The  Defeatists   New  Republic    167 

Firth,  J.  B.     The  Government  and  the  League  of  Nations 

Fortnightly  Review     171 

A  League  of  Nations  Living  Age     179 

The  League  to  Enforce  Peace  Spectator    183 

Poindexter,  Miles,  Senator.     A  League  of  Nations   

Congressional  Record    185 

Reed  Denounces  League  Plan.. New  York  Evening  Journal     189 

Lowell  Discusses  League  of  Nations New  York  Times     194 

The  Cornerstone  of  Peace American  Economist    197 

Macdonell,  John.    The  League  of  Nations  in  Jeopardy 

Contemporary  Review    200 


CONTENTS  ix 

Lord  Cecil  in  Favor  of  a  World  League.  .New  York  Times    203 
Angell,  Norman.    The  Background  of  Aggression  

New  Republic    206 

Butler,  Nicholas  Murray.    A  League  of  Nations  211 

Holt,  Hamilton.    Why  Peace  Must  Be  Enforced 

Independent    212 

Taft,   William  Howard.      International  Police  to  Enforce 

World  Peace Nation's  Business    216 

Lodge,  Henry  Cabot.  Opposition  to  Force  for  an  Interna- 
tional Peace  League  • 220 

Marburg,  Theodore.     Germany  and  a  League  of  Nations 

New  York  Times    223 

Freedom  of  the  Seas  New  York  Times    226 

Freedom  of  the  Seas  Independent    227 

Wilson,  George  Grafton.     The  Monroe  Doctrine  and  the 

Program  of  the  League  to  Enforce  Peace 

World  Peace  Foundation    229 

Bryce,  Viscount.     The  Monroe  Doctrine  and  a  League  of 

Nations    Nation    234 

Parmoor,    Lord.        Lord   Lansdowne   and   the   League   of 

Nations  Contemporary  Review    236 

Bennett,   Arnold.     A  Peace  League  Based  on  Population 

New  York  Times  Current  History    240 

Blakeslee,   George  H.     Will   Democracy  Make  the  World 

Safe Proceedings.    American  Antiquarian  Society    243 

Pinkham,  Henry  W.    A  League  of  Nations Public    249 

Begbie,  Harold.    Can  Man  Abolish  War  ? 

North  American  Review    251 

Rockefeller,  John  D.,  Jr.      Man   Cannot  Live  to  Himself 

Alone  nor  Can  a  Nation 254 

Supplementary  Articles  for  Second  Edition. 

Graham,  Samuel  J.  League  of  Nations  to  Prevent  Inter- 
national Anarchy New  York  Times    257 

Harrison,  Austin.      Towards  the   New   Europe 

English  Review    266 

Dewey,  John.  The  Fourteen  Points  and  the  League  of 
Nations  Dial    272 

Becker,  Carl  L.    A  League  of  Nations  275 

Hapgood,  Norman.  Reasons  for  Having  a  League  of 
Nations    New  York  Times    277 


x  CONTENTS 

Roosevelt,  Theodore.     The  League  of  Nations 

Metropolitan  Magazine    280 

Beck,  James  M.    Not  Time  to  Talk  League 

New  York  Times    284 

Guthrie,  William  D.    A  League  of  Nations 

New  York  Times    287 

Lawrence,  David.     General  Smuts's  Plan  for  a  League  of 

Nations New  York  Evening  Post    290 

Bourgeois  Outlines  League  of  Nations   

New  York  Evening  Post    296 

League  of  Nations  Outlined  by  Lane New  York  Times    297 

Peace  League  Plans New  York  Times    299 


BIBLIOGRAPHY 

Many  of  these  articles,  as  well  as  similar  material  which  may  be  pub- 
lished after  this  volume  has  been  issued,  may  be  secured  at  reasonable 
rates  from  the  Wilson  Package  Library,  operated  by  The  H.  W.  Wilson 
Company. 

BIBLIOGRAPHIES 

Balch,  Emily  Greene.  Approaches  to  the  great  settlement. 
p.  346-51.     *$i.50.     Huebsch.     1918. 

Bigelow,  John.    World  peace,  p.  266-74.  *$i-50.  Kennerley.   1916. 

Goldsmith,  Robert.  League  to  enforce  peace,  p.  307-18.  *$i.5o. 
Macmillan.   191 7. 

Hicks,  Frederick  C.  Internationalism:  a  selected  list  of  books, 
pamphlets  and  periodicals,  pa  gratis.  American  Association 
for  International  Conciliation.    1913. 

League  of  Nations.  1  '.51-3.  O.  '17.  Books  on  a  league  of  na- 
tions. 

National  Security  League.  America  at  war.  p.  339-87.  Ques- 
tions of  peace.     1918. 

Oregon.  University.  Bulletin,  n.  s.  14:21-6.  N.  15,  '17.  Interna- 
tional peace  league:  reading  list  and  suggestions  by  the 
Oregon  state  library. 

Reely,  Mary  Katharine.  World  peace,  including  international 
arbitration  and  disarmament.  2d  ed.  (Debaters'  Handbook 
Series),  p.  xv-xxxiv.  Bibliography  to  December,  1915.  *$i.25. 
H.  W.  Wilson  Company.    1916. 

Reference  book  for  speakers;  Win  the  war;  Make  the  world 
safe  by  the  defeat  of  German  militarism;  Keep  the  world 
safe  by  a  league  of  nations,  p.  63-4.  League  to  Enforce 
Peace.    130  W.  42d  St.,  New  York. 

United  States.  Library  of  Congress — Division  of  Bibliography. 
List  of  references  on  a  league  of  nations.  October  7,  1918. 
18  p.  Mimeographed,   gratis. 

World  Peace  Foundation.  League  of  nations  publications.  6p. 
Free  on  request.   40  Mt.  Vernon  St.,  Boston. 

A  list  of  the  publications  published  by  and  sold  or  otherwise  dis- 
tributed by  the  World  Peace  Foundation. 


xii  BIBLIOGRAPHY 

BOOKS,  PAMPHLETS  AND  DOCUMENTS 

Adler,  Felix.  World  crisis  and  its  meaning.  Ch.  IV.  *$i.50. 
Appleton.    1915. 

Angell,  Norman.  Political  conditions  of  allied  success.  *$i.50. 
Putnam.    1918. 

Baker,  James  H.  After  the  war — what?  p.  89-112.  $1.  Strat- 
ford Co.,  Boston.    1918. 

Balch,  Emily  Greene.  Approaches  to  the  great  settlement. 
♦$1.50.   Huebsch.   1918. 

An  excerpt  is  reprinted  in  this  Handbook.      See  page  50. 

Bassett,  John  Spencer.  Lost  fruits  of  Waterloo.  *$i.50.  Mac- 
millan.    1918. 

An  examination  of  the  idea  of  the  "league  of  nations"  in  the  light  of 
history. 

Beck,  James  M.     The  reckoning,  p.  213-21.     *$i.5o.     Putnam's. 

New  York.    1918. 
Beer,    George    Louis.      English-speaking    peoples,      p.    138-60. 

League  to  enforce  peace.  $1.50.    Macmillan.   1917. 
Bigelow,  John.     World  peace.    *$i.5o.    Kennerley.    1916. 
Blakeslee,   George   H.,   ed.     Problems    and    lessons   of    peace. 

[Clark  University  addresses]    p.  214-22.     League  to  enforce 

peace.    Putnam.    19 16. 
Brailsford,  Henry  N.     League  of  nations,  new  ed.  *$2.    Mac- 
millan.   1918. 
Bridgman,  R.  L.     World  organization.    *6oc.    Ginn.    1905. 
Brinkerhoff,  E.  D.     Constitution  for  the  united  nations  of  the 

earth.    3d  ed.  pa.  Pamphlet  pub.  co.,  Fall  River,  Mass. 
Brown,  Hugh  H.    League  to  enforce  peace:    address  before  a 

joint  session  of  the  Nevada  legislature.     February  13,  191 7. 

I2p.   Carson  City.    191 7. 
Burnes,  Leon.    Nation  of  the  sea,  or  the  United  nations  of  the 

world.    $1.15.    Hirch.    1917. 

This  book  attempts  to  offer  a  solution  of  the  problem  of  world  gov- 
ernment, in  the  form  of  a  constitution  ready  for  immediate  use. 

Butler,  Nicholas  Murray.    World  in  ferment;  interpretations  of 

the  war  for  a  new  world.    Chap.  Ill,  IV,  IX,  XVI.    *$i.25. 

Scribner.   191 7. 
Clark,  J.  M.,  and  others,  eds.   Readings  in  the  economics  of  war. 

p.  588-616.    Economic  factors  in  an  enduring  peace.  *$3.  Univ. 

of  Chicago  Press.    1918. 


BIBLIOGRAPHY  xiii 

Cosmos.  Basis  of  durable  peace :  written  at  the  invitation  of 
the  New  York  Times,    pa.  30c.    Scribner's.    191 7. 

Crozier,  Alfred  Owen.  Nation  of  nations.  *50c.  Stewart  & 
Kidd.    1915. 

Dickinson,  G.  Lowes.  Choice  before  us.  Ch.  X,  XIV.  *$2. 
Dodd  Mead.     191 7. 

Dickinson,  G.  Lowes.  Foundations  of  a  league  of  peace.  World 
Peace  Foundation.   V;  no.  2.    April,  1915. 

Enforced  peace:  proceedings  of  the  first  annual  national  as- 
semblage of  the  League  to  enforce  peace.  Washington. 
May  26-27,  1916.  50c.  League  to  Enforce  Peace,  130  W.  42d 
St.,  New  York. 

Fayle,  C.  Ernest.     Great  settlement.    Murray.     1915. 

Frankly  sceptical. 

Filene,  Edward  A.  International  vigilance  committee,  pa. 
League  to  enforce  peace.    1917. 

Foote,  A.  R.  United  democratic  nations  of  the  world,  pa.  25c. 
American  Progress,  322  C  St.  N.  W.,  Washington,  D.C.   1917. 

Goldsmith,  Robert.  League  to  enforce  peace.  *$i.5o.  Macmil- 
lan.   1917. 

Gompers,  Samuel.  Labor's  interest  in  the  League  to  enforce 
peace,    pa.    League  to  enforce  peace.    1916. 

Gore,  Charles  (Bishop  of  Oxford).  League  of  nations:  oppor- 
tunity of  the  church.   28p.  pa.  10c.    Doran.     1918. 

Grabo,  C.  Henry.    World  peace  and  after.    *$i  Knopf.    1918. 

Grey,  Edward,  Viscount  of  Falloden.  The  league  of  nations: 
pamphlet.    University  Press.    Oxford. 

This  address  has  been  reprinted  in  the  New  York  Times,  June  30, 
1918;  New  York  Times  Current  History.  8:345-9.  August,  1918;  Survey. 
40:400-1,  408,  July  6,  1918;  International  Conciliation,  no.  131:515-25. 
October,  1918;  Advocate  of  Peace,  80:209-12.  July,  1918;  World  Court. 
4:398-404.  July,    1918. 

Hobson,   John   A.     Towards    international    covernment     *$i. 

Macmillan.   1915. 
Houston,    Herbert    S.     Blocking   new    wars.     *$i.     Doubleday. 

1918. 
Jastrow,  Morris,  Jr.     War  and  the  coming  peace:    The  moral 

issue.   *$i.  Lippincott    1918. 
Jefferson,    Charles   E.      Christianity    and     international     ueace 

*$i.25.     Crowell.    1915. 


xiv  BIBLIOGRAPHY 

Jordan,  David  Starr.  Ways  to  lasting  peace  Ch.  VIII.  *$i. 
Bobbs-Merrill.    1916. 

Kallen,  Horace  Meyer.  Structure  of  lasting  peace;  an  inquiry 
into  the  motives  of  war  and  peace.  *$i.25.  Marshall  Jones 
Co.,  Boston.    1918. 

Kant,  Immanuel.  Perpetual  peace;  tr.  by  Benjamin  F.  True- 
blood.  54p.  25c.  American  Peace  Society,  Colorado  Build- 
ing, Washington,  D.C. 

Labor's  war  aims:  adopted  by  the  Inter- Allied  Labour  and  So- 
cialist Conference,  February  22,  1918.  (In  International  Con- 
ciliation: Special  Bulletin,  June,  1918.) 

An  excerpt  is  printed  in  this  Handbook.  See  page  140.  The  entire 
article  is  printed  also  in  McCurdy,  Charles  A.  Clean  Peace,  pa.  10c. 
Doran.  19 18;  New  Republic.  i4:sup.  1-5.  March  23,  19 18;  and  a  sum- 
mary will  be  found  in  the  Survey.    40:6.     April  6,   19 18. 

League  of  nations.  International  conciliation.  No.  131.  Octo- 
ber,  1918. 

Contents:  League  of  nations,  Viscount  Grey;  League  of  nations, 
Nicholas  Murray  Butler;  Labor  and  the  league  of  nations,  Ordway  Tead; 
European  commission  of  the  Danube:  an  experiment  in  international  ad- 
ministration, Edward  Krehbiel;  Address  by  President  Wilson  at  the  Metro- 
politan Opera  House,  New  York,   September  27,   19 18. 

An  excerpt  from  Ordway  Tead's  article  is  reprinted  in  this  Hand- 
book.    See  page  149. 

Liberty,  peace  and  justice,   p.  17-43.    *32c.    Houghton.    1918. 
Lodge,   Henry   Cabot.     War   addresses:    1915-1917.    p.    245-80. 
President's  plan  for  a  world  peace.    *$2.5o.    Houghton-Mif- 
flin.   191 7. 
Lowell,  A.  Lawrence.    League    to  enforce    peace,    pa.    World 

Peace  Foundation.    1915. 
Mabie,  Edward  C,  ed.     International  police  to  enforce  treaties 
and  preserve  peace.    (In  University  debaters'  annual,  p.  1-42.) 
*$i.8o.    H.  W.  Wilson  Company.    1916. 
Marburg,   Theodore,   ed.    Draft  convention   for  league  of    na- 
tions.  *25c.    Macmillan.    1918. 
Marburg,  Theodore.    League  of  nations:    a  chapter  in  the  his- 
tory of  the  movement.    50c.    Macmillan.    191 7. 
Marburg,   Theodore.     League  of  nations.    Vol.  II.     60c.     Mac- 
millan.    1918. 
Mead,  Lucia  Ames.    Primer  of  the  peace  movement.    8th  ed. 
rev.  23p.  pa.     American  Peace  Society,    Colorado   Building, 
Washington,  D.C. 

Excerpts  are  reprinted  in  this  Handbook.   See  page  29. 


BIBLIOGRAPHY  xv 

Mercer,  Samuel  A.  B.  Allied  and  American  peace  terms.  6oc. 
Young  Churchman  Co.    1918. 

Minor,  Raleigh  C.  A  republic  of  nations.  *$2.5o.  Oxford  Uni- 
versity Press.,  Amer.  Branch,  35  W.  326.  St.,  New  York.    1918. 

Mugge,  Maximilian  A.     Parliament  of  man.     Daniel.    1916. 

Overstreet,  Harry  A.  World  organization.  i6p.  7c.  Woman's 
Peace  Party.    70  5th  Av.,  New  York.     1918. 

Excerpts  are  reprinted  in  this  Handbook.      See  page   124. 

Penn,  William.  Essay  towards  the  present  and  future  peace  of 
Europe.  2ip.  [Advocate  reprints].  10c.  American  Peace 
Society,  Colorado  Building,  Washington,  D.C. 

Phelps,  Edith  M.,  ed.  League  of  nations  to  enforce  peace.  (In 
University  debaters'  annual.  Vol.  IV.  p.  107-43).  *$i.8o. 
H.  W.  Wilson  Company.    1918. 

Phillips,  Walter  Alison.  The  confederation  of  Europe.  Long- 
mans.   1914. 

Reely,  Mary  Katharine.  World  peace  including  international 
arbitration  and  disarmament.  2d  ed.  (Debaters'  Handbook 
Series).   $1.25.    H.  W.  Wilson  Co.    1916. 

Reference  book  for  speakers :  Win  the  war ;  Make  the  world 
safe  by  the  defeat  of  German  militarism;  Keep  the  world 
safe  by  a  league  of  nations.  64P.  pa.  League  to  Enforce 
Peace.   130  W.  42d  St.,  New  York. 

Excerpts  are  reprinted  in  this  Handbook.     See  pages  43  and  61. 

Reinsch,  Paul  S.     Public  international  unions.    2d  ed.     World 

Peace  Foundation.     1916. 
Robinson,  Edgar  E.   and  West,  Victor  J.      Foreign  policy  of 

Woodrow  Wilson,  1913-1917.    Macmillan.    1917. 

The  body   of  the   work   is   given   over  to   the   important  utterances   of 
the  Administration. 

Shaw,  Albert.  President  Wilson's  state  papers  and  addresses: 
with  editorial  notes,  a  biographical  sketch  and  an  analytical 
index,   p.  271,  274,  315,  350,  355,  470.   *$2.  Doran.    1918. 

Taft,  William  Howard.  League  to  enforce  peace.  (In  Fulton, 
Maurice  Garland.  National  ideals  and  problems,  p.  376-87. 
Macmillan.   New  York.    1918.) 

Reprinted  from  the  proceedings  of  the  National  Education  Association, 
19 1 6,  p.   41-9.    See  also  National  Conference  of  Social  Work.     1917:33-43. 

Taft,  William  Howard,  and  Bryan,  William  Jennings.  World 
peace :  a  written  debate.  *$i.25.  Doran.   1917. 

See  also  International  Conciliation.    No.   106.    September,   1916. 


xvi  BIBLIOGRAPHY 

Trueblood,  Benjamin  F.     Federation  of  the  world.    3d  ed.     $1 

Houghton.    1908. 
United  States.    President.    League  for  peace;  address.  5c.  Supt. 

of  doc.    1917. 
Walsh,  Walter.    World  rebuilt.  Allen  &  Unwin.   1917. 
Wells,  H.  G.     In  the  fourth  year.   $1.25.   Macmillan.    1918. 
Wells,  H.  G.    League  of  free  nations.    *$i.25.    Macmillan.    1918. 
Wilson,  George  Grafton.    Monroe  doctrine  and  the  program  of 

the  League    to    enforce    peace.     World    Peace    Foundation. 

Vol.  VI:  no.  4.     August,  1916. 

An  excerpt  is  reprinted  in  this  Handbook.     See  page  230. 

Wilson,  Woodrow.  Address  at  the  Metropolitan  Opera  House, 
New  York,  September  27,  1918.  (In  International  Concilia- 
tion.  No.  131.   October,  1918.) 

For  President  Wilson's  earlier  addresses  see  Robinson  and  West. 
Foreign  policy  of  Woodrow  Wilson,  and  Shaw.  President  Wilson's  state 
papers  and  addresses. 

Win  the  war  for  permanent  peace :  addresses  made  at  the  na- 
tional convention  of  the  League  to  enforce  peace,  in  Philadel- 
phia, May  16-17,  1918.  League  to  Enforce  Peace.  130  W. 
42d  St.,  New  York. 

Pt.  V.     A  league  of  nations — America's  responsibility  and  duty.     Ad- 
dresses by  Talcott   Williams,    Herbert   S.   Houston,   William   English   Wal- 
ling, Rev.  Thomas  J.  Shahan,  John  Sharp  Williams. 
Woman's   Peace   Party.     Congressional   program.     April,    1918. 

5c.    70  5th  Av.,  New  York. 
Woolf,   L.    S.     International   government.      Prepared    for   the 

Fabian  Research  Department.  *$2.  Brentano's.  1916. 
World  Peace  Foundation.  Vol.  VI :  no.  5.  October,  1916.  Con- 
ciliation plan  of  the  League  to  enforce  peace  with  American 
treaties  in  force. 
World  Peace  Foundation.  Vol.  VI.  no.  6.  December,  1916.  His- 
torical light  on  the  League  to  enforce  peace.  40  Mt.  Vernon 
St.,  Boston. 

PERIODICAL  REFERENCES 
Academy  of  Political  Science     (N.Y.).     Proceedings.     7:1-187. 
Jl.  '17.   Foreign  relations  of  the  United  States.    Pt.  1.   Demo- 
cratic ideal  in  world  organization. 

P.  36-53-  Snow,  Alpheus  H.  International  legislation  and  administra- 
tion. 

P.  65-9.    Holt,  Hamilton.    League  to  enforce  peace. 
P.   183-7.    Byrne,  J.    Plans  for  world  organization. 


BIBLIOGRAPHY  xvii 

Advocate  of  Peace.  78:262-4.  O.  '16.  Price  of  peace.  A.  Law- 
rence Lowell. 

Advocate  of  Peace.  78:303-4.  N. '16.  League  to  enforce  peace : 
reply.    Alpheus  H.  Snow. 

Advocate  of  Peace.  79:235-7.  Ag.  '17.  Society  of  nations. 
James  Brown  Scott. 

Advocate  of  Peace.  79:298-303.  N.  '17.  Synopsis  of  plans  for 
international  organization.    Charles  H.  Levermore. 

Reprinted  from  World's  Court  Magazine.    July,   1917. 

Advocate  of  Peace.    79:337-9.    D.  '17.    Krause's  proposition  for 

a  European  league  of  states. 
Advocate  of  Peace.    80:19-20.    Ja.  '18.    Woman's  work  for  in- 
ternationalism.    Lucia  Ames  Mead. 
Advocate  of  Peace.    80:21-2.    Ja.  '18.     Current  forerunners  of 

a  league  of  nations:  notes  of  the  English  League  of  nations 

society. 
Advocate  of  Peace.    80:205-9.    Jl.  '18.    Draft  convention  for   a 

league  of  nations. 
Advocate   of   Peace.     80:209-12.     Jl.   '18.     League   of   nations. 

Edward  Grey,  Viscount  of  Falloden. 
Advocate   of   Peace.     80:235-7.     Ag.   '18.     A  governed  world. 

Nicholas  Murray  Butler. 
Advocate  of  Peace.     80:300-1.     N.  '18.     A   fatal  flaw  in  the 

league-of -nations  schemes.    Gustav  Spiller. 
American  Antiquarian   Society.     Proceedings,    n.  s.     27 :  pt.  2 : 

358-74.    O.  '17.    Will  democracy  alone  make  the  world  safe: 

a  study  of  the  history  of  the  foreign  relations  of  democratic 

states.     George  H.  Blakeslee. 

An  excerpt  is  reprinted  in  this  Handbook.      See  page  245. 
American    Economist.      62:222.      O.    18,    '18.      Corner-stone    of 

peace. 
American  Economist.     62:241.     O.  25,  '18.     Problems  after  the 

war.    Edward  A.  Filene. 

Excerpts  are  reprinted  in  this  Handbook.     See  page   198. 
American  Journal  of   International  Law.     12:408-518.     Jl.   '18. 

Some   reflections   on   the   problem   of   a  society   of   nations. 

Albert  Kocourek. 
American  Law  Review.      52:383-400.     My.  '18.     Avoidance  of 

war.     Graham  Bower. 
American  Political  Science  Review.  12:304-11.  My.  '18:    League 

of  nations  and  international  law.    E.  D.  Dickinson. 


xviii  BIBLIOGRAPHY 

American  Society  of  International  Law.  Proceedings,  1917: 
91-100.  International  organization:  executive  and  admin- 
istrative; some  supposed  objections  to  a  league  for  peace. 
William  C.  Dennis. 

An  excerpt  is  reprinted  in  this  Handbook.     See  page  25. 

American  Society  of  International  Law.  Proceedings,  1917: 
101-7.  International  organization:  executive  and  administra- 
tive.   James  Brown  Scott. 

American  Society  of  International  Law.  Proceedings,  1917: 
107-24.  America  and  the  future  society  of  nations.  Alejan- 
dro Alvarez. 

American  Society  of  International  Law.  Proceedings,  1917: 
125-31.  Neutralization  of  states  in  the  scheme  of  interna- 
tional organization.    Henri  La  Fontaine. 

Annals  of  the  American  Academy.  61 :276-83.  S.  '15.  World 
court  and  league  of  peace.     Theodore  Marburg. 

Annals  of  the  American  Academy.  66:12-15.  Jl.  '16.  Three 
plans  for  a  durable  peace.    William  I.  Hull. 

Annals  of  the  American  Academy.   66:26-31.    Jl.  '16.     Economic 
pressure  as  a  means  of  preserving  peace.     Herbert  S.  Hous- 
ton. 
Discusses  the  value  of  economic  pressure  as  a  deterrent  force. 

Annals  of  the  American  Academy.  66:44-9.  Jl.  '16.  Road  to  a 
durable  peace.    Edward  A.  Filene. 

Annals  of  the  American  Academy.  66:50-9.  Jl.  '16.  League  to 
enforce  peace — a  reply  to  critics.     Theodore  Marburg. 

Annals  of  the  American  Academy.  66:92-4.  Jl.  '16.  America's 
need  for  an  enforced  peace.    Talcott  Williams. 

Annals  of  the  American  Academy.  72:40-8.  Jl.  '17.  Pax  Amer- 
icana.    George  W.  Kirchwey. 

Annals  of  the  American  Academy.  72:142-6.  Jl.  '17.  Sover- 
eignty and  race  as  affected  by  a  league  of  nations.  Theodore 
Marburg. 

Annals  of  the  American  Academy.  72:185-99.  Jl.  '17.  A  league 
to  enforce  peace.    Walter  L.  Fisher. 

Atlantic  Monthly.  119:433-42.  Ap.  '17.  United  States  and  the 
league  of  peace.    H.  N.  Brailsford. 

Atlantic  Monthly.  119:650-5.  My.  '17.  American  plan  for  en- 
forcing peace.     Sir  Frederick  Pollock. 

A  sympathetic  discussion  of  the  League  to  enforce  peace  with  observa- 
tions as  to  some  of  its  proposals. 


BIBLIOGRAPHY  xix 

Atlantic  Monthly.  122:677-87.  N.  '18.  League  of  nations. 
Albert  Thomas. 

Excerpts  are  reprinted  in  this  Handbook.      See  page   162. 

Bellman.    25 1538-9.    N.  '16,  '18.  A  president  of  the  world. 
Bellman.    25:530-40.    N.  16,  '18.    An  international  democracy. 

Bibliotheca  Sacra.     75:598-600.  O.  '18.     Bishop  Gore's  mission 

to  the  United  States. 

Bookman.    47:227-34.    My.  '18.  Foundations  of  a  lasting  peace. 

Robert  Goldsmith. 

An  excerpt  is  reprinted  in  this  Handbook.     See  page  79. 

Books  and  Reading.  1 :88-95.  O  '18.  Historical  Survey  of 
Projects  of  Universal  Peace.    W.  Alison  Phillips. 

Excerpts  are  reprinted  in  this  Handbook.      See  page   15. 

Candid  Quarterly  Review.  No.  12:689-99.  N.  '16.  Arbitration 
dreams. 

Christian  Science  Monitor.  My.  8,  '18.  Gilbert  Murray  on  a 
league  of  nations. 

Christian  Science  Monitor.  My.  13,  '18.  Sir  W.  Dickinson  on 
league  of  nations. 

Commonwealth  Review.  2:642-61.  Jl.  '17.  Proposed  plans  for 
international  organization.    F.  A.  Magruder. 

Congressional  Record.  56:4046-7.  Mr.  20,  '18.  League  of  na- 
tions.    R.  L.  Owen. 

Congressional  Record.  56:12652-3,  12658-69.  [unbound]  N.  15, 
'18.    League  of  nations:  discussed  by  the  Senate. 

Excerpts  are  reprinted  in  this  Handbook.     See  page   188. 

Congressional     Record.     56:12720-5.     [unbound]      N.    21,    '18. 

League  of  nations:  speech  by  Senator  Reed  of  Missouri. 
Contemporary  Review.     111:290-300.    Mr.  '17.     Armed  pacifism. 

John   Macdonell. 

Same.      Living   Age.      293:259-67.      May    5,    19 17. 
Contemporary  Review.     111:665-73.    Je.  '17.    League  of  nations 
and  its  critics.    W.  H.  Dickinson. 

Author  is  chairman  of  the  League  of  Nations  Society.     Same  article  is 
in   Living  Age.      294:259-66.     August  4,    19 17. 
Contemporary    Review.      113:8-13.     Ja.    '18.     Lord   Lansdowne 

and  the  league  of  nations.     Lord  Parmoor. 

An  excerpt  is  reprinted  in  this  Handbook.      See  page  237. 
Contemporary  Review.    114:126-33.    Ag.  '18.    League  of  nations 

in  jeopardy.     John  Macdonell. 

See  also  Living  Age.    299:65-71.    October  12,  1918. 
Excerpts  are  reprinted  in  this  Handbook.      See  page  201. 


xx  BIBLIOGRAPHY 

Contemporary  Review.     114:254-61.     S.  '18.     Failure  of  Water- 
loo.    Shaw  of  Dunfermline. 
Compares  the  conditions  surrounding  the  Holy  Alliance   with  those  at 

the  present  time. 

Current  Opinion.  62:82-5.  F.  '17.  Will  the  United  States  fight 
to  preserve  the  peace  of  the  world? 

Dial.  64:180-6.  F.  28,  '18.  Structure  of  lasting  peace.  H.  M. 
Kallen. 

Excerpts  are  reprinted  in  this   Handbook.      See  page   155. 

Dial.  65:397-9.  N.  16,  '18.  Will  Russia  defeat  us?  Harold 
Stearns. 

Dial.  65:401-3.  N.  16,  '18.  League  of  nations  and  the  new 
diplomacy.    John  Dewey. 

Dublin  Review.  160:1-16.  Ja.  '17.  Future  machinery  of  peace. 
J.  G.  Snead-Cox. 

Economic  Journal.  37:442-4.  S.  '17.  League  to  enforce  peace. 
John  Bates  Clark. 

Economic  World,  n  s.  15 :7^io.  Jl.  6,  '18.  Conditions  essential 
to  a  league  of  nations  after  the  war.  Edward  Grey,  Vis- 
count of  Falloden. 

Economic  World,  n.  s.  16:651-2.  N.  9,  '18.  Finding  a  basis  for 
continuing  mutual  interest  for  the  league  of  nations. 
Arthur  Richmond  Marsh. 

Edinburgh  Review.  225:227-48.  Ap.  '17.  President  Wilson's 
peace  program  and  the  British  empire.     W.  Alison  Phillips. 

English  Review.  26:275-84:  Mr.  '18.  Ides  of  March.  Austin 
Harrison. 

English    Review.      27:87-101.      Ag.    '18.      Foundations    of    im- 
perialism; prize  essay.     H.  N.  Brailsford. 
Excerpts  are  reprinted  in  this  Handbook.      See  page  93. 

English  Review.    27:167-83.    S.  '18.    League  of  nations.    George 

Aitken. 
English   Review.     27:297-306.      O.    '18.     A    league    of    nations 

again.     Austin  Harrison. 
Fortnightly  Review,  n.  s.  109:116-23.  Ja.  '18.    America's  weapon 

for  peace.    James  D.  Whelpley. 

Same.      Living  Age.  296:579-84.     March  9,    19 18. 

Fortnightly  Review,  n.  s.  110:39-51.  Jl.  '18.  An  illusory  league 
of  nations.     J.  B.  Firth. 

Fortnightly  Review.  110:294-305.  Ag.  '18.  Is  a  league  of  na- 
tions illusory?    J.  G.  Swift  MacNeill. 


BIBLIOGRAPHY  xxi 

Fortnightly  Review.     110:367-75.     S.  '18.     Government  and  the 
league  of  nations.    J.  B.  Firth. 
An  excerpt  is  reprinted  in  this  Handbook.      See  page    173. 

Fortnightly  Review.     110:489-501.     O.  '18.     The  empire  and  the 
world  league.    E.  J.  Dillon. 
See  also  Living  Age.     299:449-59.     November  23,  19 18. 

Fortnightly  Review.     110:567-73.     O.  '18.     The  obstacles  to  a 
league  of  nations.     William  Archer. 
An  answer  to  the  articles  of  J.  B.  Firth. 

Fortnightly  Review.  110:742-55.  N. '18.  The  greater  community. 
Mona  Caird. 

Forum.  57:553-66.  My.  '17.  Peace  by  coercion.  H.  M.  Chit- 
tenden. 

Good  Housekeeping.  66:42,  136.  Mr.  '18.  Great  world  movie: 
a  machine  to  guard  machinery.     E.  S.  Martin. 

Hibbert  Journal.  15:189-98.  Ja.  '17.  Enforcing  peace.  Ed- 
ward M.  Chapman. 

Hibbert  Journal.  16:513-26.  Jl.  '18.  League  of  nations  and  the 
commonwealth  of  nations.     Roland  K.  Wilson. 

Hibbert  Journal.  16:527-41.  Jl.  '18.  Nationalism,  international- 
ism and  supernationalism.     J.  A.  R.  Marriott. 

Independent.  82:447-8.  Je.  14,  '15.  A  declaration  of  interde- 
pendence. 

Independent.  82:459-62.  Je.  14,  '15.  League  of  nations.  Wil- 
liam H.  Taft,  A.  Lawrence  Lowell  and  Theodore  Marburg. 

Independent.    86:358.    Je.  5,  '16.    League  to  enforce  peace. 

Independent.     89:202.     F.  5,  '17.     Declaration  of  independence. 

Independent.     89:212-13.     F.   5,  '17.      Why  peace  must  be  en- 
forced.    Hamilton  Holt. 
Reprinted  in  this   Handbook.      See  page   213. 

Independent.  89:224-7.  F.  5,  '17.  President  Wilson's  address 
to  the  Senate,  January  22,  191 7. 

Independent.    92:497-8.    D.  15,  '17.    For  a  holy  war. 

Independent.    93:141,  152.    Ja.  26,  '18.    United  nations. 

Independent.  95:44-5.  Jl.  13,  '18.  Peace  league  now  or  later? 
Hamilton  Holt. 

Independent.  95^354,  363,  367-  S.  14,  '18.  League  of  nations 
now.    Thomas  Raeburn  White. 

International  Journal  of  Ethics.  29:8-25.  O.  '18.  Enthrone- 
ment of  public  right.     E.  Thackray. 


xxii  BIBLIOGRAPHY 

International  Journal  of  Ethics.    29:26-8.    O.  '18.    International 
war  chest.    H.  T.  Weeks. 

Journal  of  Accountancy.     19:85-96.     F.  '15.     Plan  for  interna- 
tional peace.    E.  W.  Sells. 

League  Bulletin.     No.  107.  p.  277-9.     O.  5,  *i8.     Wilson  charts 
the  course. 

League  Bulletin.   No.  108.   p.  286-7.    O.  12,  '18.    Preliminary  re- 
port of  Bourgeois   commission:  basis  of  society  of  nations 
plan  now  in  hands  of  allied  governments. 
An  excerpt  is  reprinted  in  this  Handbook.     See  page  53. 

League  of  Nations.    1 :30-8.    O  '17.    Our  arbitration  treaties. 

Excerpts  are  reprinted  in  this  Handbook.      See  page  32. 

Literary  Digest.     50:1405-6.     Je.   12,   '15.     To  infuse  personal 

morality  into  nations. 
Literary  Digest.    51 :594~5-    S.  18,  '15.    Keeping  the  peace  of  the 

future. 
Literary  Digest.     54:324-5.     F.   10,   '17.   Shall  America  join    a 

peace  league? 
Literary  Digest.     56:13.     F.  2,  '18.     How  to  secure  permanent 

peace. 
Literary  Digest.     58:17-18.     Ag.  10,  '18.     Can  a  league  of  na- 
tions work? 
Literary  Digest.     59:11-12.     O.  12,  '18.     Shall  the  peace  league 

include  Germany? 
Literary  Digest.     59:18-19.     O.    19,   '18.      German    fitness    for 

peace-league  membership. 
Living  Age.    291 :695-6.    D.  16,  '16.    League  of  nations. 
Living  Age.     292:508-10.     F.  24,  '17.     President  Wilson's  move 

for  peace. 
Living  Age.     292:771-9.     Mr.  31,   '17.     Future    machinery    of 

peace.    J.  G.  Snead-Cox. 

An  excerpt  is  reprinted  in  this  Handbook.     See  page  23. 

Living  Age.     296:760-2.     Mr.  23,  '18.     Peace  terms  and  catch 

phrases. 
Living  Age.     297:312-15.     My.  4,  '18.     Sanctity  of  international 

contracts. 
Living  Age.    208:113-15.    Jl.  13,  '18.    League  of  nations. 

Reprinted  in  this  Handbook.      See.  page   181. 

Living  Age.    298:304-5.    Ag.  3,  '18.    League  of  nations. 
Living  Age.     208:346-7.     Ag.  io,  '18.      'Viscount  Grey     and  a 
"good  peace." 


BIBLIOGRAPHY  xxiii 

Living  Age.  299 1472-80.  N.  23,  '18.  A  league  of  nations.  Vis- 
count Grey  of  Falloden. 

A  speech  delivered  at  the  Central  Hall,  Westminster,  October  10,  19 18. 
Excerpts  are  reprinted  in  this  Handbook.     See  page  86. 

Living  Age.  299:480-4.  N.  23,  '18.  International  arbitration: 
an  Austrian  view.    M.  Grafottokar  Czernin. 

Metropolitan  Magazine.  45:27+.  Mr.  '17.  Lesson  taught  by 
Canada.    Theodore  Roosevelt. 

Modern  City.  3:33-6.  Jl.  '18.  League  of  nations  and  interna- 
tional law.    E.  D.  Dickinson. 

Nation.     103:413.    N.  2,  '16.    To  make  the  peace  secure. 

Nation.     103:536-8.     D.  7,  '16.    A  league  of  nations.     Ellery  C. 
Stowell. 
An  excerpt  is  reprinted  in  this  Handbook.     See  page  27. 

Nation.  104:5-6.  Ja.  4,  '17.  Critics  of  the  league  to  enforce 
peace. 

Nation.  104:400.  Ap.  5,  '17.  Economic  pressure.  Robert  Mat- 
thews. 

Nation.  105:659.  D.  13,  '17.  Monroe  Doctrine  and  a  league  of 
nations.    Viscount  Bryce. 

Reprinted  in  this  Handbook.      See  page  235. 

Nation.  106:392-4.  Ap.  4,  *i8.  British  empire  and  a  league  of 
peace.     George  Burton  Adams. 

Nation.    107:5.    Jl.  6,  '18.    Pseudo-league  of  nations. 

Nation.  107:58.  Jl.  20,  '18.  Mr.  Asquith  and  a  league  of  na- 
tions. 

Nation.  107:508-10.  N.  2,  '18.  Napoleon  and  Hollenzollern. 
William  Milligan  Sloane. 

Nation.  107:576.  N.  '16,  '18.  The  peace  and  after.  Charles 
Gore,  Bishop  of  Oxford. 

Nation.  107,  sec.  2:509-601.  N.  16,  '18.  Freedom  of  the  seas. 
Pitman  B.  Potter. 

National  Drug  Clerk.  6:692-3+,  805-6+,  O.-N.,  '18.  Blocking 
new  wars.     Herbert  S.  Houston. 

New  Armenia.  10:161-3.  N.  '18.  Armenia  and  the  league  of 
nations.    Edward  H.  Clement. 

New  Republic.  7:102-4.  Je.  3,  '16.  Mr.  Wilson's  great  utter- 
ance. 

New  Republic.  9:60-2.  N.  18,  '16.  Germany  and  the  league  of 
peace. 

New  Republic.    9:255-7.    Ja.  6,  '17.    Opposition  gathers. 


xxiv  BIBLIOGRAPHY 

New  Republic.    9:281-3.     Ja.  13,  '17.    Roosevelt  and  righteous- 
ness. 
New    Republic.      9:287-91.     Ja.    13,    '17.     Structure    of    peace. 

Herbert  Croly. 
New  Republic.     10:5-7.     F.  3,  '17.     Facts  behind  the  phrase. 
New  Republic.     10:187-90.    Mr.  17,  '17.    Peace  by  organization. 

H.  N.  Brailsford. 
New  Republic.  12:150-2.     S.  8,  '17.    The  background  of  aggres- 
sion.   Norman  Angell. 

Excerpts  are  reprinted  in  this  Handbook.      See  page  207. 
New  Republic.     13:265-6.    Ja.  5,  '18.     France  and  the  league  of 

nations. 
New  Republic.     13:368-72.    Ja.  26,  '18.    To  make  the  league  of 

nations  real. 
New  Republic.     14:41-3.     F.  9,  '18.     Wisdom  of  the  wise. 
New  Republic.     14:286-9.     Ap.  6,  '18.     League  of  free  nations: 

a  plain  necessity.     H.  G.  Wells. 
New  Republic.     14:316-18.    Ap.  13,  '18.    League  of  free  nations: 

what  democracy  means.    H.  G.  Wells. 
New   Republic.      15:113-15.      My.   25,    '18.     League   of   nations. 

H.  N.  Brailsford. 
New  Republic.     15:309-11.    Jl.  13,  '18.    H.  N.  Brailsford. 
New  Republic.     16:152-5.     S.  7,  '18.     In  justice  to  France. 
New  Republic.    16:327-9.    O.  19,  '18.    The  defeatists. 

Reprinted  in  this  Handbook.      See  page   169. 
New  Republic.     17:69-70.     N.  16,  '18.     League  of  nations  cate- 
chism.   P.  W.  Wilson. 
New  Republic.     17:92-4.     N.  23,  '18.     The  core  of  the  trouble. 

H.  G.  Wells. 
New  Republic.   17:116-18.    N.  30,  '18.  America  and  the  league  of 

nations. 
New  Statesman.    9:342-4,  367-9,  392-3,  416-18,  440-1,  465-6.     Jl. 

14,  21,  28,  Ag.^II,  18,  '17.    League  of  nations. 

Excerpts  are  reprinted  in  this  Handbook.     See  pages  56  and  109. 

New  Statesman.     10:324-5.     Ja.  5,  '18.     Utopia. 

New    Statesman.     11:365-6.    Ag.    10,    '18.    How    to    make    the 

league. 
New  Statesman.    12:125-9.   N.  16,  '18.    A  league  of  nations. 
New  York  Evening  Post  Magazine,    p.  1-2.    N.  30,  '18.    A  league 

of  nations.    Charles  R.  Van  Hise. 

Excerpts  are  reprinted  in  this  Handbook.      See  page    134. 


BIBLIOGRAPHY  xxv 

New  York  Times,  p.  4.  Mr.  3,  '18.  Society  of  the  world's 
nations  to  thwart  the  power  of  Prussia.    Walter  Wellman. 

New  York  Times,  p.  2.  0.  27,  '18.  Germany's  Colonies :  Should 
They  Be  Turned  Over  to  a  Newly-Formed  League  of  Na- 
tions?   G.  B.  Gordon. 

New  York  Times.  N.  10,  '18.     Freedom  of  the  seas.     Earl  W. 
Crecraft. 
Reprinted  in  this  Handbook.      See  page  227. 

New  York  Times  Current  History.  8,  pt.2 1345-57.    Ag.  '18.     A 
league  of  nations:  the  project  discussed  from  various  view 
points  by  leading  allied  statesmen  and  publicists. 
Lord  Grey,  Lloyd  George,  Curzon,  H.  G.  Wells  and  Arnold  Bennett. 
An   excerpt   from   the   article   by   Arnold   Bennett   is   reprinted   in   this 

Handbook.      See   page   241. 

New  York  Times  Current  History.    8:511-13.    S.  '18.    President 
Wilson  and  the  league  of  nations.     Herbert  H.  Asquith. 
Speech   before  the  Liberal  Club,  July  4,    19 18. 

Nineteenth  Century.  81:689-708.  Mr.  '17.  Leagues  to  en- 
force peace.  Failure  of  the  Holy  Alliance.  John  Hall.  An 
illusion  of  today.     F.  G.  Stone. 

Nineteenth  Century.  81 :799-8io.  Ap.  '17.  American  dream  of 
peace.    Herbert  Stephen. 

Nineteenth  Century.  84:251-9.  Ag.  '18.  Greatest  league  of  na- 
tions.    Sydenham  of  Combe. 

Nineteenth  Century.  84:485-506.  S.  '18.  A  Swiss  jurist  on  the 
league  of  nations.    A.  Shadwell. 

North  American  Review.  205 :25-30.  Ja.  '17.  League  to  en- 
force peace.    A.  Lawrence  Lowell. 

North  American  Review.  205:475-80.  Mr.  '17.  Problems  of 
a  peace  league. 

North  American  Review.  205:886-94.  Je.  '17.  Can  man  abolish 
war?    Harold  Begbie. 

An  excerpt  is  reprinted  in  this  Handbook.      See  page  252. 

North  American  Review.  208:650-3.  N.  '18.  League,  not 
alliance. 

North  American  Review.  208:665-8.  N.  '18.  A  league  of  na- 
tions and  what  it  could  do.    Sir  Oliver  Lodge. 

North  American  Review.  208 :828-30.  D.  '18.  League  or  entente. 
John  Jay  Chapman. 

Open  Court    31 :59-63.    Ja.  '17.    Problems  of  universal  peace. 


xxvi  BIBLIOGRAPHY 

Outlook.     114:118-19.    S.  20,  '16.    Mr.  Asquith  endorses  interna- 
tional peace  league. 

Outlook.    114:524-6.    N.  8,  '16.    The  league  of  peace.  Viscount 
Grey  and  Viscount  Bryce. 

Outlook.     115:186-9.     Ja.  31,  '17.     An  international  league  for 
peace. 

Outlook.     119:184-5.     My.  29,  '18.    War  spirit  of  a  peace  league. 

Outlook.    120:576-8.    D.  11,  '18.    A  league  of  nations:  the  origin 
and  growth  of  the  idea. 

Public.    21 :432-5.    Ap.  6,  '18.    International  economic  functions. 
Ordway  Tead. 

Public.    21 :755-8.    Je.  15,  '18.    Political  league  to  enforce  peace. 
Charles  Fremont  Taylor. 

Public.    21 :879-82.    Jl.  13,  '18.     An  experimental  league  of  na- 
tions. 

Public.    21:1205-8.    S.  21,  '18.    League  of  nations  and  the  peace 
conference.     Carl  H.  P.  Thurston. 

Public.    21  :i2i2-i3.     S.  21,  '18.    Only  way  to  permanent  peace. 
Lucia  Ames  Mead. 

Public.     21 :  1285-9.     O.    12,   '18.     League    for    democracy   and 
peace.    Joseph  C.  Allen. 

Public.    21:1338-9.    O.  26,  '18.    A  league  of  nations.    Henry  W. 
Pinkham. 
Reprinted  in  this  Handbook.      See  page  251. 

Public.    21 :  1384-5.    N.  9,  '18.     World  federation. 

Quarterly    Review.    229:569-75.    Ap.    '18.    Course   of    the   war. 

W.  P.  Blood. 
Review  of  Reviews.     55:148-51.     F.  '17.     President's  power  to 

act  with  a  peace  league.     Talcott  Williams. 
Review  of  Reviews.    58:73-5-    Jl-  '18.    English-speaking  league. 

P.  W.  Wilson. 
Review  of  Reviews.    58 1322.    S.  '18.    Would  a  league  of  nations 

work? 
Saturday  Evening  Post.    191:10,52.    N.  23,  '18.    League  of  free 

nations.    H.  G.  Wells. 

Reprinted  in  this  Handbook.      See  page   10 1. 

Spectator.     118:60-2.    Ja.  20,  '17.    Leagues  to  enforce  peace. 
Spectator.      120:308-9.     Mr.   23,    '18.     Sanctity  of   international 

contracts. 
Spectator.     121 14,  37-9.    Jl.  6-13,  '18.    League  of  nations. 
Survey.    36 :28i-2.    Je.  10,  '16.    Bill  of  rights  for  the  world. 


BIBLIOGRAPHY  xxvii 

Survey.      37:491-2.      Ja.   27,   '17.      Constitution   and   the  peace 

league. 
Survey.     38:195.     My.  26,  '17.     Peace  through  a  union  of  free 

nations. 
Survey.     39:137-40.     N.    10,    '17.     Through    liberty   to    world 

peace:   first  congress   of  the   League  of  small  and   subject 

nationalities. 
Survey.     40:607-8.     Ag.   31,   '18.     A  league    of    nations  now? 

Hamilton  Holt. 
Survey.  41:121.  N.  2,   '18.   Pierre   Dubois:  who  dreamed  of  a 

league  of  nations  six  hundred  years  ago.    Lilian  Brandt. 
Survey.    41 :25o-i.    N.  30,  '18.    The  new  League  of  free  nations 

association :    statement  of  principles. 

Also  printed  in  the  Dial  for  November  30,  19 18.  p.  493;  and  the  New 
York  Times  for  December  2,  19 18.  See  also  the  Public  for  November  30, 
1918.  p.  1455;  the  Nation  for  November  30,  1918,  p.  650;  and  the  New 
Republic  for  November  30,  19 18,  p.  134.  Excerpts  are  reprinted  in  this 
Handbook.     See  page  47. 

Textile  World.  52:2991.  My.  26,  '17.  Purposes  of  League  to 
enforce  peace.     Charles  W.   Needham. 

Unpopular  Review.  10:244-54.  O.  '18.  Earlier  league  to  en- 
force peace. 

Describes  Sully's  "Great  Design." 

World   Court.     3:72-9.     Mr.   '17.     American   constructive  pro- 
posals for  international  justice.    Charles  H.  Levermore. 
Reprinted  in  this  Handbook.     See  page  41. 

World  Court.  3:79-83,  1 13-15,  117.  Mr.  '17.  Four  plans  for 
durable  peace:  a  comparison  of  the  President's  plan,  Penn's 
plan,  the  World  court  league,  and  the  League  to  enforce 
peace,  by  William  I.  Hull;  Kind  of  peace  Socialists  call  for, 
by  V.  I.  Berger  and  others;  Minimum  program  for  organiz- 
ing a  durable  peace. 

World  Court.  3:609-10;  4:11-14,  74~8o>  302-4,  458-63.  D.  '17;  Ja., 
F.,  My.,  Ag.  '18.  Public  opinion  concerning  a  league  of  na- 
tions. 

World  Court.  4:15-17.  Ja.  '18.  Marburg  on  a  league  of  nations. 
Samuel  T.  Dutton. 

World  Court.  4:137-46.  Mr.  '18.  A  league  of  nations.  Nicholas 
Murray  Butler,  Mr.  Asquith,  Lord  Lansdowne,  Lord  Cecil, 
Arthur  Henderson. 

World  Court.  4:202-10.  Ap.  '18.  Cooperative  union  of  nations. 
Alpheus  H.  Snow. 


xxviii  BIBLIOGRAPHY 

World  Court.    4:305-7.    My.  '18.    Nationality,  the  league  of  na- 
tions and  the  international  constitution.    Paul  Otlet. 

World  Court.     4:471-5.     Ag.  '18.     Permanent  league  for  inter- 
national justice.     Nicholas  Murray  Butler. 

World  Court.     4:558-64.     S.  '18.     The  great  debate.     Doremus 
Scudder. 

World   Court.     4:669-76.     N.   '18.     French   association   for  the 
society  of  nations.     Ferdinand  Buisson.     British  League  of 
free  nations  association.     A  Swedish  view  of  league  pos- 
sibilities.   Edward  Wavrinsky. 
Excerpts  are  reprinted  in  this  Handbook.     See  pages  51  and  53. 

World  Tomorrow.    1 :3i3-i5.    D.  '18.    Fundamentals  of  a  league 
of    nations.    Henri    Lambert. 
Beginning  with  the  December  number  each  issue  will  contain  a  section 

devoted  to  the  discussion  of  the  many  problems  involved  in  the  establish- 
ment and  future  policies  of  a  league  of  nations. 

World's  Work.     30:718-21.     O.  '15.     League  to  enforce  peace. 
A.  Lawrence  Lowell. 

World's  Work.    36:11-13.    My.  '18.    Responsibility  of  a  nation's 
strength. 

Yale  Review.     7:837-53.     Jl.  '18.     Illusions  of  the  belligerents 
E.  J.  Dillon. 


SUPPLEMENTARY  BIBLIOGRAPHY  FOR 
SECOND  EDITION 

BOOKS  AND  PAMPHLETS 

Basis  of  permanent  peace :  outline  study  of  a  league  of  nations : 
the  background,  purpose  and  problems  of  the  movement.  12  p. 
pa.    League  to  Enforce  Peace,  130  W.  426.  St.,  New  York. 

Becker,  Carl  L.    America's  war  aims  and  peace  program.   (War 
information  series,  No.  21.  November,  1918   p.  48-52.     Com- 
mittee-on  public  information,  Washington,  D.  C. 
Excerpts  reprinted.     See  page  275  of  this  volume. 

Bryce,  James  B.     Essays  and  addresses  in  war  time.  p.  176-208. 

*$2.    Macmillan.     1918. 
Grand  Rapids.  Public  Library.  Bulletin.  14:147-8.  D.  '18.  League 

of  nations :  bibliography. 
Jordan,  David  Starr.  Democracy  and  world  relations.  Ch.  VII. 

Internationalism   and   federation.      $1.20.      World   Book   Co. 

Yonkers-on-Hudson,  N.  Y.  1918. 
Kallen,  Horace  Meyer.    League  of  nations  today  and  tomorrow. 

*$i.5o.  Marshall  Jones  Co.  1918. 
eague  of  nations :  outlines   for  discussion.   12  p.  pa.  National 

Committee  on  the  Churches  and  the  Moral  Aims  of  the  War, 

70  Fifth  Avenue,  New  York. 

With  references. 

Merrill,  William  Pierson.  Christian  internationalism.  $1.50.  Mac- 
millan. 1919. 

Robinson,  Helen  Ring.  Preparing  women  for  citizenship.  Ch. 
VI.  *$i.  Macmillan.  New  York.  1918. 

Rosenberg,  J.  N.  New  magna  carta  [Liberty  loan  speech,  Sep. 
tember  27,  1918].  pa.  Kennerley.  1918. 

jSocial  Progress.  11  :No.  3.  D.  '18.  A  league  of  nations:  study 
outline.  Denys  P.  Myers. 

Speare,  Morris  Edmund  and  Norris,  Walter  Blake.  World  war 
issues  and  ideals :  Readings  in  contemporary  history  and  lit- 


L 


xxx  BIBLIOGRAPHY 

erature.  Pt.  V.  The  new  Europe  and  a  lasting  peace.  Pt.  VII. 

American  foreign  policy.  $1.40.     Ginn  &  Co.  1918. 
Taft,  William  Howard.  Why  a  league  of  nations  is  necessary. 

16  p.  pa.  League  to  Enforce  Peace,  130  W.  426.  St.,  New  York. 
Tead,  Ordway.  People's  part  in  peace.  *$i.25.  Holt.  1918. 

PERIODICAL  REFERENCES 

American  Economist.  62:382.  D.  27,  '18.  League  mystery. 
American  Law  Review.  52 :  938-9.  N.  '18.  War  and  the  league  of 

nations. 
Atlantic  Monthly.  123:106-15.  Ja.  '19.  The  idea  of  a  league  of 

nations;  symposium.  H.  G.  Wells  and  others. 
Congressional  Record.  57:762-8.    [unbound]    D.  21,  '18.   Coming 

treaty  of  peace.  Senator  Lodge. 

See  also  p.  974-6  of  the  Record  for  January  3,   19 19. 
Congressional  Record.  57:791-2.    [unbound].  D.  23,   '18.  League 

of  nations  for  peace.  Andre  Cheradame. 
Congressional  Record.  57 :957-65.  [unbound]  Ja.  2,  '19.  League  of 

nations  for  peace.  Senator  McKellar. 
Congressional  Record.  57:983-88.    [unbound]   Ja.  3,  '19.  League 

of  nations.  Senator  Thomas. 
Congressional  Record.  57:1088-100.  [unbound]  Ja.  4,  '19.    League 

of  nations  for  peace.     Senator  Lewis. 
Congressional  Record.  57:1143-8.  [unbound]  Ja.  7,  '19.  A  league 

of  nations.     Senator  McCumber. 
Congressional  Record.  57:1468-70  [unbound]  Ja.  14,  '19.  League 

of  nations.  Senator  Shafroth. 
Congressional  Record.    57:1565-9.  [unbound]  Ja.  15,  '19.  League 

of  nations.  Senator  Borah. 
Contemporary  Review.  114:407-14.  O.  '18.  The  league  of  nations; 

a  voice  from  the  past.  Harold  Spender. 
Contemporary  Review.   114:477-83.  N.  '18.  Necessary  guarantee 

of  the  peace.  T.  McKinnon  Wood. 
Current  Opinion.  65:281.  N.  '18.  Bringing  the  league  of  nations 

within  the  sphere  of  practical  politics. 
Dial.  65:341-2.  N.  2,  '18.  Approach  to  a  league  of  nations.  John 

Dewey. 
Dial.  65:397-9.  N.  16,  '18.  Will  Russia  defeat  us?  Harold  Stearns. 
Dial,  65:459-63.  N.  30,  '18.  Why  the  Wilson  peace  policy  may 

fail.    A  European  liberal. 


BIBLIOGRAPHY  xxxi 

Dial.  65:463-4.  N.  30,  '18.     Fourteen  points  and  the  league  of 
nations.  John  Dewey. 
Reprinted.    See  page  272  of  this  Handbook. 

Economic  World.  103 :3~4.  Ja.  4,  '19.  League  of  nations  practi- 
cally considered. 

English  Review.  ^  :309-78.  N.  '18.  A  world  declaration  of  rights. 
Austin  Harrison. 

English  Review.  27:442-7.   D.  '18.   Statement  of  policy.  Austin 
Harrison. 

English   Review.  27:448-57.   D.   '18.   Towards   the  new   Europe. 
Austin  Harrison. 

Excerpts  reprinted.     See  page  266  of  this  Handbook. 
Fortnightly  Review.  110:813-18.  D.  '18.  National  sovereignty  and 

the  league  of  nations.  Sir  Frederich  Pollock. 

See  also  Living  Age.   300:68-72.  January   n,   19 19. 
Fortnightly  Review.  110:865-73.  D.  '18.  Conference  of  nations. 

Sidney  Low. 
Forum.  61 :53-6i.  Ja.  '19.  Problems  for  world  peace.  William  H. 

Taft. 
Gateway.  31 :27~9.  D.  '18.  League  of  nations. 
Intercollegiate  Socialist.  7:25-8.  D.  '18.  A  league  of  nation*  and 

permanent  peace:  Harry  P.  Salpeter. 

Contains  a  brief  list  of  books  on  the  subject. 
Journal  of  Geography.  17:85-91.  N.  '18.     Political  boundaries  in 

relation  to  wider  political  problems.     George  G.  Chisholm. 
Living  Age.  299:666-9.  S.  14,  18.  German  view  of  a  league  of 

nations.  Sir  Henry  Morris. 
Living  Age.  299:202-5.  O.  26,  '18.  Obstacles  to  a  league  of  nations. 

Frederic  Harrison. 
Living  Age.  299:590-7.  D.  7,  '18.  World  declaration   of  rights. 

Austin  Harrison. 
Living  Age.  299:758-9.  D.  21,  '18.  A  democratic  world  trust.  A. 

Randall  Wells. 
Munsey.  66:77-83.  F.  '19.  League  of  nations — its  problems  and 

possibilities.  Frederic  Austin  Ogg. 
National  Civic  Federation  Review.  4:1-6.  Ja.  io,  '19.  Can  all  wars 

be  prevented?      Articles  by  A.  J.   Beveridge,   Henry  Cabot 

Lodge,  Ralph  M.  Easley. 
New  Europe.  9:173-6.  D.  5,  '18.  Price  of  the  society  of  nations. 

W.  Alison  Phillips. 


xxxii  BIBLIOGRAPHY 

New  Republic.  17:92-4.  N.  23,  '18.  Core  of  the  trouble.  H.  G. 

Wells. 
New  Republic.  17:116-18.  N.  30,  '18.  America  and  the  league  of 

nations. 
New  Republic.  17:178-80.  D.  14,  '18.    The  issue. 
New  Republic.  17:236-7.  D.  28,  '18.  Disintegration  in  Europe. 
New  Republic.  17:296-8.  Ja.  11,  '19.  Hypotheses  vs.  certainties  in 

international  politics. 
New  Statesman.  12:125-8.  N.  16,  '18.  League  of  nations. 
New  Statesman.  12:174-5.  N.  30,  '18.  The  league  and  revolutions. 
New  York  Evening  Post.  p.  1.  Ja.  13,  '19.  President  studies  plan 

submitted  by  the  British. 

An  outline  of  the  main  points  of  the  plan  of  General  Smuts.     See  also 
New  York  Times  for  January  11.     See  page  290  of  this  Handbook. 

New  York  Journal,  p.  2.  D.  30,  '19.  Reed  denounces  league  plan. 

Speech  before  the  Society  of  Arts  and  Sciences  at  the  Hotel  Biltmore, 
New  York,  December  29,   19 18.     See  page   189  of  this  Handbook. 

New  York  Times.  D.  31,  '18.  Lowell  discusses  league  of  nations. 
Speech  before  the  Society  of  Arts  and  Sciences,  at  the  Hotel  Biltmore, 
New  York,  December  29,  19 18.     See  page  194  of  this  Handbook. 

New  York  Times.  Ja.  12,  '19.  League  of  nations  to  avert  inter- 
national anarchy.  Samuel  J.  Graham. 
Reprinted.      See   page   257   of   this   Handbook. 

New  York   Times.  Ja.    12,   '19.   Reasons    for  having  league  of 
nations.  Norman  Hapgood. 
Excerpt  reprinted.      See  page   2n  of  this  Handbook. 

North  American  Review.  208:665-8.  N.  '18.  A  league  of  nations 
and  what  it  could  do.  Sir  Oliver  Lodge. 

Outlook.  120 :  655-6.  D.  25,  '18.  Christmas,  1918.  Lyman  Abbott. 

Outlook.  121 :  12-13.  J  a.  I,  '19.  Have  we  a  league  of  nations? 

Outlook.  121:105.  Ja.  15,  '19.  List  of  books  on  the  "league  of 
nations"  idea. 

Outlook.  121 :  105-6.  Ja.  15,  '19.  League  of  nations  from  a  Ja- 
panese view-point.  T.  Iyenaga. 

Pan-American  Magazine.  28:67-77.  D.  '18.  League  of  nations: 
international  court  and  national  disarmament,  the  only  guar- 
antee of  permanent  peace.    Henry  Kirk  White. 

Polish  Review.  1 :247-7i.  Jl.  '17.  Poland  and  the  league  of  nations. 
H.  N.  Brailsford. 

Public.  21 :  1384-5.  N.  9,  '18.  World  federation.  Algernon  S. 
Crapsey. 


BIBLIOGRAPHY  xxxiii 

Public.  21 11475.  D.  7,  '18.  War  debts  may  help  bind  the  nations, 
together.  Charles  Fremont  Taylor. 

Religious  Education.  13  :397~40i.  D.  '18.  Teachers  and  the  league 
of  nations.  Edward  Lyttelton. 

Review  of  Reviews.  59:43-50.  Ja.  '19.  Congress  of  nations  past 
and  present.  Talcott  Williams. 

Revue  de  Paris.  25  :825~38.  D.  15,  '18.  Les  conditions  prealables 
d'une  societe  des  nations.     Bernard  Lavergne. 

Round  Table.  No.  33 :  12-20.  D.  '18.  The  league  of  nations. 

Spectator.  121 :444~5.  O.  26,  '18.  League  of  nations. 
Includes  a  constitution  for  a  league  of  nations. 

Survey.  41 1408.  D.  28,  '18.  Support  for  a  league  of  nations. 

Unpopular  Review.  11 112-28.  Ja.  '19.  Movement  for  a  league  of 
nations. 

Wisconsin  Library  Bulletin.  15 132-4.  Ja.  '19.  Selected  bibliog- 
raphy for  a  league  of  nations.  Graham  H.  Stuart. 

World  Tomorrow.  2:  22-3.  Ja.  '19.  The  league  of  nations:  a  dis- 
cussion. 

World's  Work.  37:399-48.  F.  '19.  Articles  by  Lothrop  Stoddard, 
Kenneth  Colegrove,  Stephane  Lauzanne,  Lord  Charnwood, 
Frank  Parker  Stockbridge,  Herbert  S.  Houston,  John  H. 
Latane,  Talcott  Williams. 


ORGANIZATIONS 

American  Association  for  International  Conciliation,  Sub-sta- 
tion 84  (407  W.  117th  St.),  New  York,  N.  Y. 

Publishes  "International  Conciliation,"  monthly.  Subscription  price 
25c  a  year;  $1  for  5  years.  Special  bulletins  are  issued  also  from  time  to 
time.  Back  numbers  of  "International  Conciliation"  and  the  special  bul- 
letins will  be  sent  to  any  address  post  paid  at  five  cents  each.  A  list  of 
those  available  is  published  in  the  October  issue  for   1918. 

American    Peace    Society,    Colorado    Building,   Washington, 

D.  C 

Publishes  the  "Advocate  of  Peace"  monthly  except  September.  Sub- 
scription price,  $1  a  year.  Also  handles  the  publication  of  the  Carnegie 
Endowment  for  International  Peace.  A  complete  list  of  these  will  be  fur- 
nished upon  request. 

American  School  Peace  League,  405  Marlborough  St.,  Boston, 

Mass.     Mrs.. Fanny  Fern  Andrews,  Sec. 
Association    to    Abolish   War,     17    Hazlewood     St.,     Roxbury, 

Boston,  Mass. 

Publishes  literature  which  is  sent  on  request. 

California  Society  for  the  Promotion  of  the  Federation  of 
Nations  [Inc.],  Nellie  Wheelwright,  901  3d  Av.,  Los  An- 
geles, Calif. 
Publishes  the  "Federator."     Subscription  price,  50c  a  year. 

Central   Organization   for  a  Durable   Peace,  Theresiastraat  51, 
The  Hague. 

Church  Peace  Union,  70  Fifth  Av.,  New  York,  N.Y. 

Fellowship  of  Reconciliation,  118  East  28th  St.,  New  York,  N.  Y. 

Publishes  the  "World  Tomorrow,"  monthly.  Subscription  price,  $1  a 
year. 

French  Association  of  the  Society  of  Nations,  24  Rue  Pierre- 
Curie,   Paris,    (Ve).  M.  Leon   Bourgeois,    President;    M.   J. 
Prudhommeaux,  Secretary. 
Publishes  a  Bulletin.     The  first  number  was  issued  in  December,  19 18 

and  contains  a  statement   of  the  society's  purpose  and  principles. 

Irish  League  of  Nations  Society,  65  Middle  Abbey  St.,  Dublin, 

E.  A.  Aston  and  W.  G.  Fallon,  B.  A.,  Honorary  Secretaries. 
League  for  Democratic  Control,  Room  428,  Walker  Building, 

120  Boylston  St.,  Boston,  Mass. 

Publishes  "Forward,"  monthly.     Subscription  price,  $1  a  year. 

League  for  Permanent  Peace,  421  Boylston  St.,  Boston,  Mass. 


xxxvi  ORGANIZATIONS 

League  of  Free  Nations  Association,  130  W.  426.  St.,  New 
York,  N.  Y.     Lincoln  Colcord,  Publicity  Director. 
Membership  $5  a  year.     Funds  for  publicity  work  derived  from  mem- 
bership fees  and  voluntary  subscriptions.      Circulars  and  publicity  material 
distributed  free  on  request. 

League  of  Nations  Union,  22  Buckingham  Gate,  London,  S.  W.  I. 
Viscount  Grey  of  Falloden,  Pres. 

This  new  society  was  formed  recently  by  the  union  of  the  League  of 
Free  Nations  Association  of  which  Viscount  Bryce  was  Vice-President, 
and  the  League  of  Nations  Society  of  which  the  Rt.  Hon.  W.  H.  Dickin- 
son, M.  P.,  was  Chairman.  Many  pamphlets  are  issued,  procurable  at  id. 
each. 

League  of  Nations  for  a  Society  of  Nations  Based  on  an  Inter- 
national Constitution,  5  Cite  Cardinal-Lemoine,  Paris. 
Henri  Lepert,  Sec. 

Publishes  "La  Societe  des  Nations,"  monthly.  Subscription  price,  5  fr. 
a  year,  including  foreign  postage.     First  issue  November,  19 17. 

League  to  Enforce  Peace,  130  W.  42d  St.,  New  York,  N.  Y. 

William  H.  Taft,  Pres. 

Issues  a  small  weekly  publication  under  the  title  "The  League  Bul- 
letin." Subscription  price,  $1  a  year.  Also  publishes  many  leaflets  and 
circulars  on  the  subject  of  "A  League  of  Nations,"  including  occasional 
digests  of  current  literature  on  the  subject,  all  of  which  are  distributed 
free  of  charge.  The  library  at  Headquarters  is  also  open  for  study  to 
anyone  interested.     Active  membership,  $5   a  year. 

Lega  Delle  Nazioni  Corse  Vittorio,  Amanuelle  8.  Milan,  Italy. 
Nederlandsche  Anti-Oorlog  Raad,  Prinsessegracht  19,  'S-Grav- 
enhage,  The  Hague.    Dr.  B.  de  Jong  van  Beek  en  Donk,  Dir. 
Publishes   a   number  of   pamphlets   and   an    official   organ    "De    Toekom- 
stige   Vrede." 

New  York  Peace  Society,  70  Fifth  Av.,  New  York,  N.Y. 
Charles  A.  Levermore,  Sec. 

Publishes  the   "Messenger."      Subscription  price   $1   a  year. 
Swiss  Committee  for  the  Preparation  of  the  League  of  Nations, 

33  Lerchenweg,  Berne. 
Swiss  League  of  Nations  Society,  33,  Lerchenweg,  Berne. 
Woman's    International   League,    70    Fifth   Av.,    New   York, 
N.  Y.     Nell  Vincent,  Sec. 

Issues  occasional  leaflets  and  pamphlets  which  are  distributed  free  or 
for  a  few  cents. 

World  Court  League,  Inc.,  2  West  13th  St.,  New  York  City., 

Dr.  Nicholas  Murray  Butler,  Pres. 

Publishes  "The  World  Court,"  monthly.  Subscription  price,  $2  a 
year. 

World  Peace  Foundation,  40  Mt.  Vernon  St.,  Boston,  Mass. 
Issues  "A  League  of  Nations,"  bi-monthly.  Subscription  price,  25c  a 
year;  $1  for  5  years.  This  publication  is  the  successor  of  the  World  Peace 
Foundation  pamphlet  series.  The  Foundation  also  issues  other  publica- 
tions and  pamphlets,  a  list  of  which  will  be  sent  on  request. 


A  LEAGUE  OF  NATIONS 


INTRODUCTION 

Perhaps  every  war  has  created  in  men's  hearts  the  feeling 
that  there  must  be  no  more  war,  and  that  ways  must  be  found 
whereby  nations  may  live  in  peace  with  one  another  and  yet 
secure  adequate  expression  for  the  national  spirit  and  the  self- 
development  necessary  for  full  and  free  existence.  Early  in  the 
Seventeenth  Century  Sully  set  forth  the  "Grand  Design"  of 
Henry  the  Fourth  whereby  a  "General  Council  of  Europe" 
"would  examine  into  and  determine  all  civil,  political  and 
religious  suits  either  in  Europe  itself  or  arising  out  of  the  rela- 
tions of  Europe  with  the  world  outside."  St.  Pierre,  William 
Penn,  Alexander  I,  all  conceived  similar  plans  which  they  be- 
lieved would  put  an  end  to  war,  and  the  Holy  Alliance  was 
originally  an  actual  attempt  to  carry  out  the  principle  advocated 
today  in  the  idea  of  a  league  of  nations.  The  fact  that  all  of 
these  projects  embodied  the  very  idea  which  is  urged  today  as 
the  fundamental  basis  of  a  permanent  peace,  might  discourage 
us  from  believing  that  a  league  of  nations  could  be  accomplished 
more  successfully  than  were  they,  were  it  not  perhaps  that  today 
we  shall  be  able  to  see  more  clearly  the  fundamental  defects  in 
our  political,  economic  and  social  systems  that  drive  men  to 
war;  that  by  a  study  of  the  history  of  all  the  attempts  that 
have  been  made  to  establish  peace  between  nations  we  can  see 
what  has  heretofore  prevented  us  from  attaining  the  real  spirit 
of  brotherhood  which  must  be  the  basis  of  any  lasting  peace. 

The  impression  derived  from  a  study  of  the  rather  exten- 
sive literature  that  has  appeared  during  the  last  few  years  is  ably 
expressed  by  Mr.  H.  G.  Wells.  Of  the  phrase  "A  League  of 
Nations"  he  says  "It  must  be  confessed  that  to  begin  with  it 
conveyed  to  most  minds  rather  an  aspiration  than  any  detailed 
content.  It  was  little  more  than  the  expression  of  a  desire  for 
some  organized  attempt  to  end  war  in  the  world;  in  some  man- 


k'  '• .'■  . :.  .Selected  articles 

ner  the  states  of  the  world  were  to  come  together  in  a  more  or 
less  binding  pledge  to  substitute  law  for  force  in  their  interac- 
tion. .  .  .  Within  the  frame  supplied  by  this  phrase  however, 
an  enormous  amount  of  mental  activity  has  gone  on,  and  much 
that  was  entirely  vague  has  now  been  thought  out."  One  is 
struck  too  by  the  absence,  until  recently,  of  any  real  opposition 
to  the  idea,  perhaps  because  in  the  minds  of  many  it  was  com- 
fortably destined  to  remain  forever  an  ideal,  and  partly  too  be- 
cause the  active  struggle  to  secure  peace  was  not  conducive,  ex- 
cept on  the  part  of  the  far-seeing  few,  of  any  consideration  of 
methods  whereby  peace  was  to  be  perpetuated  after  it  had  once 
been  secured.  With  the  signing  of  the  armistice,  however,  the 
league  of  nations  ceased  to  be  merely  a  lofty  ideal.  To  the 
more  or  less  definite  suggestions  that  had  already  been  made  by 
the  Inter-Allied  Socialist  and  Labour  Conference,  by  President 
Wilson,  and  others,  and  by  the  League  to  Enforce  Peace  and 
other  organizations,  new  proposals  for  a  league  of  nations  have 
been  formulating  rapidly  and  new  organizations  have  been 
formed  to  promote  definite  plans  for  putting  it  into  effect.  And 
now  it  has  been  placed  among  the  first  of  the  matters  to  receive 
consideration  at  the  Peace  Conference. 

In  view  of  the  rapidity  with  which  the  movement  is  now 
progressing,  this  volume  will  be  somewhat  out  of  date,  even  on 
its  issue  from  the  press,  but  it  provides  a  history  of  the  move- 
ment to  date  and  represents  in  the  reprints  all  phases  of  the  dis- 
cussion that  have  appeared  thus  far,  and  therefore  will  furnish 
a  basis  for  study  which  can  and  should  be  supplemented  by  re- 
course to  the  discussions  that  will  appear  from  now  on  in  the 
press  and  on  the  platform  in  ever-increasing  quantity. 

In  this  volume  has  been  set  down,  first  of  all,  President 
Wilson's  idea  of  a  league  of  nations  as  developed  thru  his 
speeches  and  state  papers  of  the  last  two  years — ending  with  the 
speech  at  Rome  of  January  3.  This  is  not  a  definite  proposal  to 
which  discussion  should  be  limited  but  will  serve  to  give  body  to 
the  proposition  at  the  outset  and  to  provide  a  starting-point  for 
the  discussion.  In  fact,  until  now  there  has  not  been  a  definite 
program  offered  on  which  discussion  can  center.  Men  have 
found  it  necessary  to  reconstruct  their  ideas  constantly  in  order 
to  keep  pace  with  the  constant  change  of  events.  We  have  an 
example  of  this  in  the  new  "Victory  Program"  which  the  League 
to  Enforce  Peace  substituted  recently  for  its  earlier  platform. 


A   LEAGUE   OF   NATIONS  3 

This  first  division  of  the  volume  is  followed  by  a  series  of 
reprints  selected  to  furnish  the  necessary  historical  background 
and  to  show  how  public  opinion  is  reacting  to  the  idea  of  a 
league  of  nations  at  the  present  moment.  A  special  effort  has 
been  made  to  include  the  latest  material  available  to  date  de- 
scribing the  various  organizations  that  have  been  formed  to 
promote  a  league  of  nations  as  a  part  of  the  peace  settlement. 
Although  no  organization  has  yet  appeared  for  the  single  pur- 
pose of  combatting  the  idea,  the  discussion  which  occupies  the 
most  of  this  volume  sets  forth  the  arguments  of  the  opposition 
as  well  as  those  in  favor. 

This  has  been  followed  by  brief  statements  of  endorsement 
from  prominent  men,  governments,  various  organizations  and 
peace  societies.  Many  of  these  endorse  the  general  idea  only 
and  do  not  support  a  particular  plan.  They  serve  to  show  the 
amount  of  attention  that  has  been  given  to  the  question  and 
from  what  varied  sources  the  suggestion  has  come. 

In  the  discussion  following  two  aims  have  been  kept  in  view ; 
to  give  expression  to  the  various  conceptions  of  a  league  of  na- 
tions as  put  forth  by  its  advocates,  and  to  voice  the  difficulties 
and  objections  as  they  have  been  given.  The  plans  that  have 
been  presented  vary  all  the  way  from  timid  schemes  for  a  mere 
rehabilitation  of  the  Hague,  to  the  broad  and  comprehensive 
scope  conceived  of  by  Mr.  H.  G.  Wells,  or  the  British  Labour 
Party.  The  opposition  is  divided  also  between  those  who,  like 
Senator  Reed,  oppose  the  entire  scheme  of  a  league  of  nations, 
and  those  who  approve  the  idea  but  are  troubled  as  to  its  bearing 
on  such  problems  as  the  freedom  of  the  seas,  the  Monroe  Doc- 
trine, the  self-determination  of  peoples,  disarmament,  and  the 
degree  of  sovereignty  that  must  be  relinquished  by  the  various 
entering  nations  if  the  league  is  to  be  a  real  success.  The  com- 
piler has  striven  to  select  impartially  and  as  judiciously  as 
possible  from  the  material  available,  all  that  would  give  light 
on  the  various  ideas  that  have  been  presented,  especially  in  re- 
gard to  the  questions  that  will  be  matters  of  controversy  in  con- 
nection with  the  peace  settlement. 

While  it  is  hoped  that  the  articles  collected  in  this  volume 
will  enable  the  reader  to  gain  an  intelligent  understanding  of 
this  question,  doubtless  many  persons  will  wish  to  make  a  more 
extensive  study.    For  their  convenience  a  bibliography  has  been 


4  SELECTED    ARTICLES 

included  of  the  more  important  books  and  periodical  articles 
on  this  subject.  With  a  few  exceptions,  these  have  been  pub- 
lished during  the  past  two  years,  but  the  various  bibliographies 
that  have  been  listed  will  give  access  to  earlier  articles.  Of 
later  material  the  reader  will  probably  find  no  dearth  in  the 
periodicals  and  newspapers  he  is  accustomed  to  consult.  For  his 
assistance  however  it  might  be  acceptable  to  name  a  few  of  the 
periodicals  that  are  devoting  or  can  be  expected  to  devote  much 
space  to  the  subject,  as  the  Advocate  of  Peace,  the  World  Court, 
the  New  Republic;  also  the  propagandist  material  of  the  various 
peace  societies  and  league  of  nations  associations  which  have 
been  listed  on  another  page  of  this  volume.  For  the  opposition, 
doubtless  more  material  will  be  forthcoming  in  the  Congres- 
sional Record,  like  the  speeches  in  the  Senate  of  November  15 
and  21,  published  in  the  Record  of  the  same  dates,  and  many  of 
the  daily  papers  can  be  relied  upon  to  represent  this  side.  From 
now  on  the  discussion  will  probably  settle  more  or  less  closely 
about  the  plan  for  the  league  of  nations  to  be  developed  at  the 
peace  conference. 

Although  this  Second  Edition  follows  the  first  by  not  more 
than  six  weeks,  many  new  references  have  been  found  worthy 
of  addition  to  the  Bibliography  and  a  number  of  new  articles 
have  been  reprinted.  For  convenience,  these  have  been  made 
supplementary  to  the  Bibliography  and  the  Discussion  as  they 
appeared  in  the  First  Edition.  Such  revision  has  also  been  made 
as  was  necessary  to  bring  the  volume  down  to  date. 

It  is  hoped  that  every  citizen  will  give  earnest  thought  to 
this  great  question  and  thus  take  his  part  in  the  great  settlement. 

January  25,  1919.  Edith  M.  Phelps. 


A  LEAGUE  OF  NATIONS  AS  ADVOCATED 
BY  WOODROW  WILSON1 

I  pray  God  that  if  this  contest  have  no  other  result  it  will 
at  least  have  the  result  of  creating  an  international  tribune 
and  producing  some  sort  of  joint  guarantee  of  peace  on  the 
part  of  the  great  nations  of  the  world. — Address  at  Des  Moines, 
Iowa,  February  I,  1916. 

If  it  should  ever  be  our  privilege  to  suggest  or  initiate  a 
movement  for  peace  among  the  nations  now  at  war,  I  am 
sure  that  the  people  of  the  United  States  would  wish  their 
government  to  move  along  the  line  .  .  .  second,  an  universal 
association  of  the  nations  to  maintain  the  inviolate  security 
of  the  highway  of  the  seas  for  the  common  and  unhindered 
use  of  all  the  nations  of  the  world,  and  to  prevent  any  war 
begun  either  contrary  to  treaty  covenants  or  without  warn- 
ing and  full  submission  of  the  causes  to  the  opinion  of  the 
world — a  virtual  guarantee  of  territorial  integrity  and  politi- 
cal independence.  ...  I  feel  that  the  world  is  even  now  upon 
the  eve  of  a  great  consummation,  when  some  common  force 
will  be  brought  into  existence  which  shall  safeguard  right  as 
the  first  and  most  fundamental  interest  of  all  peoples  and  all 
governments,  when  coercion  shall  be  summoned  not  to  the 
service  of  political  ambition  or  selfish  hostility,  but  to  the 
service  of  a  common  order,  a  common  justice,  and  a  common 
peace." — Address  to  the  League  to  Enforce  Peace,  Washington, 
D.C.,  May  27,  1916. 

I  shall  never  myself  consent  to  an  entangling  alliance,  but 
would  gladly  assent  to  a  disentangling  alliance,  an  alliance  which 
would  disentangle  the  peoples  of  the  world  from  those  combina- 
tions in  which  they  seek  their  own  separate  and  private  interests, 
and  unite  the  peoples  of  the  world  to  preserve  the  peace  of  the 
world  upon  a  basis  of  common  right  and  justice.  There  is  liberty 

1  Excerpts  from  the  addresses  and  state  papers  of  Woodrow  Wilson, 
President  of  the  United  States. 


6  SELECTED    ARTICLES 

there,  not  limitation.  There  is  freedom,  not  entanglement.  There 
is  the  achievement  of  the  highest  thing  for  which  the  United 
States  has  declared  its  principles. — Address  at  Arlington  Na- 
tional Cemetery,  May  30,  1916. 

We  believe  that  the  time  has  come  when  it  is  the  duty  of  the 
United  States  to  join  with  the  other  nations  of  the  world  in  any 
feasible  association  that  will  effectively  secure  those  principles 
to  maintain  inviolate  the  complete  security  of  the  highway  of 
the  seas  for  the  complete  and  unhindered  use  of  all  nations. — 
Public  Address,  June  17,  1916. 

When  we  look  forward  to  the  years  to  come — I  wish  I  could 
say  the  months  to  come — to  the  end  of  this  war,  we  want  all 
the  world  to  know  that  we  are  ready  to  lend  our  force  without 
stint  to  the  preservation  of  peace  in  the  interest  of  mankind. 
The  world  is  no  longer  divided  into  little  circles  of  interest. 
The  world  no  longer  consists  of  neighborhoods.  The  world  is 
linked  together  in  a  common  life  and  interest  such  as  humanity 
never  saw  before,  and  the  starting  of  wars  can  never  again  be 
a  private  and  individual  matter  for  the  nations.  What  disturbs 
the  life  of  the  whole  world  is  the  concern  of  the  whole  world, 
and  it  is  our  duty  to  lend  the  full  .force  of  this  nation,  moral 
and  physical,  to  a  league  of  nations  which  shall  see  to  it  that 
nobody  disturbs  the  peace  of  the  world  without  submitting  his 
case  first  to  the  opinion  of  mankind. — Semi-Centennial  Address 
at  Omaha,  Nebraska,  October  6,  1916. 

The  nations  of  the  world  must  get  together  and  say  that 
nobody  can  hereafter  be  neutral  as  respects  the  disturbance  of 
the  world's  peace  for  an  object  which  the  world's  opinion  cannot 
sanction.  The  world's  peace  ought  to  be  disturbed  if  the  funda- 
mental rights  of  humanity  are  invaded,  but  it  ought  not  to  be 
disturbed  for  any  other  thing  that  I  can  think  of,  and  America 
was  established  in  order  to  indicate,  at  any  rate  in  one  govern- 
ment, the  fundamental  rights  of  man.  America  must  hereafter 
be  ready  as  a  member  of  the  family  of  nations  to  exert  her 
whole  force,  moral  and  physical,  to  the  assertion  of  those  rights 
throughout  the  round  globe. — Address  before  the  Woman's  City 
Club  of  Cincinnati,  October  25,  1916. 

No  covenant  of  cooperative  peace  that  does  not  include  the 
peoples  of  the  New  World  can  suffice  to  keep  the  future  safe 
against  war,  and  yet  there  is  only  one  sort  of  peace  that  the 


A   LEAGUE   OF   NATIONS     .  7 

people  of  America  can  join  in  guaranteeing.  .  .  .  Mere  agree- 
ments may  not  make  peace  secure.  It  will  be  absolutely  neces- 
sary that  a  force  be  created  as  a  guarantor  of  the  permanency  of 
the  settlement  so  much  greater  than  the  force  of  any  nation  now 
engaged,  or  any  alliance  hitherto  formed  or  projected,  that  no 
nation,  no  probable  combination  of  nations,  could  face  or  with- 
stand it.  If  the  peace  presently  to  be  made  is  to  endure,  it  must 
be  a  peace  made  secure  by  the  organized  major  force  of  man- 
kind. 

And  in  holding  out  the  expectation  that  the  people  and  Gov- 
ernment of  the  United  States  will  join  the  other  civilized  nations 
of  the  world  in  guaranteeing  the  permanence  of  peace  upon  such 
terms  as  I  have  named,  I  speak  with  the  greater  boldness  and 
confidence  because  it  is  clear  to  every  man  who  can  think  that 
there  is  in  this  promise  no  breach  in  either  our  traditions  or  our 
policy  as  a  nation,  but  a  fulfilment  rather  of  all  that  we  have 
professed  or  striven  for. 

I  am  proposing,  as  it  were,  that  the  nations  should  with  one 
accord  adopt  the  doctrine  of  President  Monroe  as  the  doctrine 
of  the  world:  that  no  nation  should  seek  to  extend  its  policy 
over  any  other  nation  or  people,  but  that  every  people  should  be 
left  free  to  determine  its  own  policy,  its  own  way  of  develop- 
ment, unhindered,  unthreatened,  unafraid,  the  little  along  with 
the  great  and  powerful. 

I  am  proposing  that  all  nations  henceforth  avoid  entangling 
alliances  which  would  draw  them  into  competitions  of  power, 
catch  them  in  a  net  of  intrigue  and  selfish  rivalry,  and  disturb 
their  own  affairs  with  influences  intruded  from  without.  There 
is  no  entangling  alliance  in  a  concert  of  power.  When  all  unite 
to  act  in  the  same  sense  and  with  the  same  purpose,  all  act  in 
the  common  interest  and  are  free  to  live  their  own  lives  under 
a  common  protection. 

I  am  proposing  government  by  the  consent  of  the  governed; 
that  freedom  of  the  seas  which  in  international  conference  after 
conference  representatives  of  the  United  States  have  urged  with 
the  eloquence  of  those  who  are  the  convinced  disciples  of  Lib- 
erty; and  that  moderation  of  armaments  which  makes  of  armies 
and  navies  a  power  for  order  merely,  not  an  instrument  of 
aggression  or  of  selfish  violence. 

These  are  American  principles,  American  policies.     We  can 


8  •        SELECTED    ARTICLES 

stand  for  no  others.  And  they  are  also  the  principles  and  poli- 
cies of  forward-looking  men  and  women  everywhere,  of  every 
modern  nation,  of  every  enlightened  community.  They  are  the 
principles  of  mankind  and  must  prevail. — Address  to  the  Senate, 
January  22,  1917. 

A  steadfast  concert  for  peace  can  never  be  maintained  except 
by  a  partnership  of  democratic  nations.  No  autocratic  Govern- 
ment could  be  trusted  to  keep  faith  within  it  or  observe  its 
covenants.  It  must  be  a  league  of  honor,  a  partnership  of 
opinion.  Intrigue  would  eat  its  vitals  away;  the  plottings  of 
inner  circles  who  could  plan  what  they  would  and  render  account 
to  no  one  would  be  a  corruption  seated  at  its  very  heart.  Only 
free  peoples  can  hold  their  purpose  and  their  honor  steady  to  a 
common  end  and  prefer  the  interests  of  mankind  to  any  narrow 
interest  of  their  own. 
*********** 

The  world  must  be  made  safe  for  democracy.  Its  peace  must 
be  planted  upon  the  tested  foundations  of  political  liberty.  We 
have  no  selfish  ends  to  serve.  We  desire  no  conquest,  no  domin- 
ion. We  seek  no  indemnities  for  ourselves,  no  material  com- 
pensation for  the  sacrifices  we  shall  freely  make.  We  are  but 
one  of  the  champions  of  the  rights  of  mankind.  We  shall  be 
satisfied  when  those  rights  have  been  made  as  secure  as  the 
faith  and  the  freedom  of  nations  can  make  them.     .  .  . 

It  is  a  distressing  and  oppressive  duty,  Gentlemen  of  the  Con- 
gress, which  I  have  performed  in  thus  addressing  you.  There 
are,  it  may  be,  many  months  of  fiery  trial  and  sacrifice  ahead  of 
us.  It  is  a  fearful  thing  to  lead  this  great,  peaceful  people  into 
war,  into  the  most  terrible  and  disastrous  of  all  wars,  civilization 
itself  seeming  to  be  in  the  balance.  But  the  right  is  more 
precious  than  peace,  and  we  shall  fight  for  the  things  which  we 
have  always  carried  nearest  our  hearts — for  democracy,  for  the 
right  of  those  who  submit  to  authority  to  have  a  voice  in  their 
own  governments,  for  the  rights  and  liberties  of  small  nations, 
for  a  universal  dominion  of  right  by  such  a  concert  of  free 
peoples  as  shall  bring  peace  and  safety  to  all  nations  and  make 
the  world  itself  at  last  free.  To  such  a  task  we  can  dedicate  our 
lives  and  our  fortunes,  everything  that  we  are  and  everything 
that  we  have,  with  the  pride  of  those  who  knonr  that  the  day  has 
come  when  America  is  privileged  to  spend  her  blood  and  her 


A   LEAGUE. OF   NATIONS  9 

might  for  the  principles  that  gave  her  birth  and  happiness  and 
the  peace  which  she  has  treasured.  God  helping  her,  she  can  do 
no  other. — War  Message  to  Congress,  April  2,  191 7. 

The  free  peoples  of  the  world  must  draw  together  in  some 
common  covenant,  some  genuine  and  practical  cooperation  that 
will  in  effect  combine  their  force  to  secure  peace  and  justice  in 
the  dealings  of  nations  with  one  another.  The  brotherhood  of 
mankind  must  no  longer  be  a  fair  but  empty  phrase;  it  must  be 
given  a  structure  of  force  and  reality.  The  nations  must  realize 
their  common  life  and  effect  a  workable  partnership  to  secure  that 
life  against  the  aggressions  of  autocratic  and  self-pleasing  power. 
— Message  to  the  Russian  Government,  published  June  10,  191 7. 

The  worst  that  can  happen  to  the  detriment  of  the  German 
people  is  this,  that  if  they  should  still,  after  the  war  is  over, 
continue  to  be  obliged  to  live  under  ambitious  and  intriguing 
masters  interested  to  disturb  the  peace  of  the  world,  men  or 
classes  of  men  whom  the  other  peoples  of  the  world  could  not 
trust,  it  might  be  impossible  to  admit  them  to  the  partnership  of 
nations  which  must  henceforth  guarantee  the  world's  peace.  That 
partnership  must  be  a  partnership  of  peoples,  not  a  mere  partner- 
ship of  governments. — Message  to  Congress,  December  14,  1917. 

We  entered  this  war  because  violations  of  right  had  occurred 
which  touched  us  to  the  quick  and  made  the  life  of  our  own 
people  impossible  unless  they  were  corrected  and  the  world 
secure  once  for  all  against  their  recurrence. 

What  we  demand  in  this  war,  therefore,  is  nothing  peculiar 
to  ourselves.  It  is  that  the  world  be  made  fit  and  safe  to  live  in 
and  particularly  that  it  be  made  safe  for  every  peace-loving 
nation  which,  like  our  own,  wishes  to  live  its  own  life,  determine 
its  own  institutions,  be  assured  of  justice  and  fair  dealing  by 
the  other  peoples  of  the  world  as  against  force  and  selfish  ag- 
gression. 

All  the  peoples  of  the  world  are  in  effect  partners  in  this  in- 
terest, and  for  our  own  part  we  see  very  clearly  that  unless  jus- 
tice be  done  to  others  it  will  not  be  done  to  us.  The  program  of 
the  world's  peace,  therefore,  is  our  program;  and  that  program, 
the  only  possible  program,  as  we  see  it,  is  this : 

1.  Open  covenants  of  peace,  openly  arrived  at,  after  which 
there  shall  be  no  private  international  understandings  of  any 
kind  but  diplomacy  shall  proceed  always  frankly  and  in  the  pub- 
lic view. 


io  SELECTED    ARTICLES 

2.  Absolute  freedom  of  navigation  upon  the  seas,  outside 
territorial  waters,  alike  in  peace  and  in  war,  except  as  the  seas 
may  be  closed  in  whole  or  in  part  by  international  action  for  the 
enforcement  of  international  covenants. 

3.  The  removal,  so  far  as  possible,  of  all  economic  barriers 
and  the  establishment  of  an  equality  of  trade  conditions  among 
all  the  nations  consenting  to  the  peace  and  associating  them- 
selves for  its  maintenance. 

4.  Adequate  guarantees  given  and  taken  that  national  arma- 
ments will  be  reduced  to  the  lowest  points  consistent  with 
domestic  safety. 

5.  A  free,  open-minded,  and  absolutely  impartial  adjustment 
of  all  colonial  claims,  based  upon  a  strict  observance  of  the  prin- 
ciple that  in  determining  all  such  questions  of  sovereignty  the 
interests  of  the  populations  concerned  must  have  equal  weight 
with  the  equitable  claims  of  the  government  whose  title  is  to  be 
determined. 

6.  The  evacuation  of  all  Russian  territory  and  such  a  settle- 
ment of  all  questions  affecting  Russia  as  will  secure  the  best  and 
freest  cooperation  of  the  other  nations  of  the  world  in  obtaining 
for  her  an  unhampered  and  unembarrassed  opportunity  for  the 
independent  determination  of  her  own  political  development  and 
national  policy  and  assure  her  of  a  sincere  welcome  into  the 
society  of  free  nations  under  institutions  of  her  own  choosing; 
and,  more  than  a  welcome,  assistance  also  of  every  kind  that  she 
may  need  and  may  herself  desire.  The  treatment  accorded 
Russia  by  her  sister  nations  in  the  months  to  come  will  be  the 
acid  test  of  their  good  will,  of  their  comprehension  of  her  needs 
as  distinguished  from  their  own  interests,  and  of  their  intelli- 
gent and  unselfish  sympathy. 

7.  Belgium,  the  whole  world  will  agree,  must  be  evacuated 
and  restored,  without  any  attempt  to  limit  the  sovereignty  which 
she  enjoys  in  common  with  all  other  free  nations.  No  other 
single  act  will  serve  as  this  will  serve  to  restore  confidence 
among  the  nations  in  the  laws  which  they  have  themselves  set 
and  determined  for  the  government  of  their  relations  with  one 
another.  Without  this  healing  act  the  whole  structure  and  valid- 
ity of  international  law  is  forever  impaired. 

8.  All  French  territory  should  be  freed  and  the  invaded  por- 
tions restored,  and  the  wrong  done  to  France  by  Prussia  in  1871 


A   LEAGUE   OF   NATIONS  n 

in  the  matter  of  Alsace-Lorraine,  which  has  unsettled  the  peace 
of  the  world  for  nearly  fifty  years,  should  be  righted,  in  order 
that  peace  may  once  more  be  made  secure  in  the  interest  of  all. 

9.  A  readjustment  of  the  frontiers  of  Italy  should  be  ef- 
fected along  clearly  recognizable  lines  of  nationality. 

10.  The  peoples  of  Austria-Hungary,  whose  place  among 
the  nations  we  wish  to  see  safe-guarded  and  assured,  should  be 
accorded  the  freest  opportunity  of  autonomous  development. 

11.  Rumania,  Serbia,  and  Montenegro  should  be  evacuated; 
occupied  territories  restored;  Serbia  accorded  free  and  secure 
access  to  the  sea;  and  the  relations  of  the  several  Balkan  states 
to  one  another  determined  by  friendly  counsel  along  historically 
established  lines  of  allegiance  and  nationality;  and  international 
guarantees  of  the  political  and  economic  independence  and  ter- 
ritorial integrity  of  the  several  Balkan  states  should  be  entered 
into. 

12.  The  Turkish  portions  of  the  present  Ottoman  Empire 
should  be  assured  a  secure  sovereignty,  but  the  other  national- 
ities which  are  now  under  Turkish  rule  should  be  assured  an 
undoubted  security  of  life  and  an  absolutely  unmolested  oppor- 
tunity of  autonomous  development,  and  the  Dardanelles  should 
be  permanently  opened  as  a  free  passage  to  the  ships  and  com- 
merce of  all  nations  under  international  guarantees. 

13.  An  independent  Polish  State  should  be  erected  which 
should  include  the  territories  inhabited  by  indisputably  Polish 
populations,  which  should  be  assured  a  free  and  secure  access  to 
the  sea,  and  whose  political  and  economic  independence  and  ter- 
ritorial integrity  should  be  guaranted  by  international  covenant. 

14.  A  general  association  of  nations  must  be  formed  under 
specific  covenants  for  the  purpose  of  affording  mutual  guaran- 
tees of  political  independence  and  territorial  integrity  to  great 
and  small  states  alike. 

In  regard  to  these  essential  rectifications  of  wrong  and  asser- 
tions of  right  we  feel  ourselves  to  be  intimate  partners  of  all  the 
governments  and  peoples  associated  together  against  the  im- 
perialists. We  cannot  be  separated  in  interest  or  divided  in  pur- 
pose.   We  stand  together  until  the  end. 

For  such  arrangements  and  covenants  we  are  willing  to  fight 
and  continue  to  fight  until  they  are  achieved;  but  only  because 
we  wish  the  right  to  prevail  and  desire  a  just  and  stable  peace 


12  SELECTED    ARTICLES 

such  as  can  be  secured  only  by  removing  the  chief  provocations 
to  war,  which  this  program  does  remove. — Address  to  Congress, 
January  8,  1918. 

It  will  be  necessary  that  all  who  sit  down  at  the  peace  table 
shall  come  ready  and  willing  to  pay  the  price,  the  only  price, 
that  will  procure  it;  and  ready  and  willing,  also,  to  create  in 
some  virile  fashion  the  only  instrumentality  by  which  it  can  be 
made  certain  that  the  agreements  of  the  peace  will  be  honored 
and  fulfilled. 

That  price  is  impartial  justice  in  every  item  of  the  settle- 
ment, no  matter  whose  interest  is  crossed;  and  not  only  im- 
partial justice,  but  also  the  satisfaction  of  the  several  peoples 
whose  fortunes  are  dealt  with.  That  indispensable  instrumental- 
ity is  a  League  of  Nations  formed  under  covenants  that  will 
be  efficacious.  Without  such  an  instrumentality,  by  which  the 
peace  of  the  world  can  be  guaranteed,  peace  will  rest  in  part 
upon  the  word  of  outlaws,  and  only  upon  that  word.  For  Ger- 
many will  have,  to  redeem  her  character,  not  by  what  happens  at 
the  peace  table,  but  by  what  follows. 

And,  as  I  see  it,  the  constitution  of  that  League  of  Nations 
and  the  clear  definition  of  its  objects  must  be  a  part,  is  in  a 
sense  the  most  essential  part,  of  the  peace  settlement  itself. 
It  cannot  be  formed  now.  If  formed  now,  it  would  be  merely 
a  new  alliance  confined  to  the  nations  associated  against  a 
common  enemy.  It  is  not  likely  that  it  could  be  formed  after 
the  settlement.  It  is  necessary  to  guarantee  the  peace,  and 
the  peace  cannot  be  guaranteed  as  an  afterthought.  The  reason, 
to  speak  in  plain  terms  again,  why  it  must  be  guaranteed  is  that 
there  will  be  parties  to  the  peace  whose  promises  have  proved 
untrustworthy,  and  means  must  be  found  in  connection  with 
the  peace  settlement  itself  to  remove  that  source  of  insecurity. 
It  would  be  folly  to  leave  the  guarantee  to  the  subsequent  volun- 
tary action  of  the  Governments  we  have  seen  destroy  Russia 
and  deceive  Rumania. 

But  these  general  terms  do  not  disclose  the  whole  matter. 
Some  details  are  needed  to  make  them  sound  less  like  a  thesis 
and  more  like  a  practical  program.  These,  then,  are  some  of 
the  particulars,  and  I  state  them  with  the  greater  confidence 
because  I  can  state  them  authoritatively  as  representing  this 
Government's  interpretation  of  its  own  duty  with  regard  to 
peace : 


A   LEAGUE   OF   NATIONS  13 

First,  the  impartial  justice  meted  out  must  involve  no  dis- 
crimination between  those  to  whom  we  wish  to  be  just  and 
those  to  whom  we  do  not  wish  to  be  just.  It  must  be  a  justice 
that  plays  no  favorites  and  knows  no  standards  but  the  equal 
rights  of  the  several  peoples  concerned; 

Second,  no  special  or  separate  interest  of  any  single  nation 
or  any  group  of  nations  can  be  made  the  basis  of  any  part  of 
the  settlement  which  is  not  consistent  with  the  common  interest 
of  all; 

Third,  there  can  be  no  league  or  alliances  or  special  coven- 
ants and  understandings  within  the  general  and  common  family 
of  the  League  of  Nations; 

Fourth,  and  more  specifically,  there  can  be  no  special,  selfish 
economic  combinations  within  the  league  and  no  employment  of 
any  form  of  economic  boycott  or  exclusion  except  as  the  power 
of  economic  penalty  by  exclusion  from  the  markets  of  the  world 
may  be  vested  in  the  League  of  Nations  itself  as  a  means  of  dis- 
cipline and  control; 

Fifth,  all  international  agreements  and  treaties  of  every 
kind  must  be  made  known  in  their  entirety  to  the  rest  of  the 
world. 

Special  alliances  and  economic  rivalries  and  hostilities  have 
been  the  prolific  source  in  the  modern  world  of  the  plans  and 
passions  that  produce  war.  It  would  be  an  insincere  as  well 
as  an  insecure  peace  that  did  not  exclude  them  in  definite  and 
binding  terms. 

The  confidence  with  which  I  venture  to  speak  for  our  people 
in  these  matters  does  not  spring  from  our  traditions  merely 
and  the  well-known  principles  of  international  action  which 
we  have  always  professed  and  followed.  In  the  same 
sentence  in  which  I  say  that  the  United  States  will  enter  into 
no  special  arrangements  or  understandings  with  particular 
nations  let  me  say  also  that  the  United  States  is  prepared 
to  assume  its  full  share  of  responsibility  for  the  maintenance  of 
the  common  covenants  and  understandings  upon  which  peace 
must  henceforth  rest.  We  still  read  Washington's  immortal 
warning  against  "entangling  alliances"  with  full  comprehension 
and  an  answering  purpose.  But  only  special  and  limited  al- 
liances entangle;  and  we  recognize  and  accept  the  duty  of  a 
new   day  in   which   we   are   permitted   to   hope   for   a   general 


i4  SELECTED    ARTICLES 

alliance  which  will  avoid  entanglements  and  clear  the  air  of 
the  world  for  common  understandings  and  the  maintenance  of 
common  rights. — Address  at  the  Metropolitan  Opera  House, 
New  York,  September  27,  1918. 

My  conception  of  the  League  of  Nations  is  just  this — that  it 
shall  operate  as  the  organized  moral  force  of  men  throughout 
the  world,  and  that  whenever  or  wherever  wrong  and  aggres- 
sion are  planned  or  contemplated,  this  searching  light  of  con- 
science will  be  turned  upon  them,  and  men  everywhere  will  ask, 
"What  are  the  purposes  that  you  hold  in  your  heart  against  the 
fortunes  of  the  world?" 

Just  a  little  exposure  will  settle  most  questions.  If  the  Cen- 
tral Powers  had  dared  to  discuss  the  purposes  of  the  war  for  a 
single  fortnight,  it  never  would  have  happened ;  and,  if  as  should 
be,  they  were  forced  to  discuss  it  for  a  year,  the  war  would 
have  been  inconceivable." — Speech  in  acknowledgment  of  the 
doctor's  degree  conferred  by  the  University  of  Paris,  December 
21,  1918. 

We  know  there  cannot  be  another  balance  of  power.  That 
has  been  tried  and  found  wanting,  for  the  best  of  all  reasons 
that  it  does  not  stay  balanced  inside  itself,  and  a  weight  which 
does  not  hold  together  cannot  constitute  a  make-weight  in  the 
affairs  of  men. 

Therefore  there  must  be  something  substituted  for  the  bal- 
ance of  power,  and  I  am  happy  to  find  everywhere  in  the  air  of 
these  great  nations  the  conception  that  that  thing  must  be  a 
thoroughly  united  League  of  Nations. — Speech  in  the  Chamber 
of  Deputies,  Rome,  January  3,  1919. 


THE  HISTORICAL  BACKGROUND 

HISTORICAL     SURVEY     OF     PROJECTS     OF 
UNIVERSAL    PEACE1 

The  first  of  the  long  series  of  "projects  of  perpetual  peace" — 
the  Grand  Design,  which  Sully  ascribes  to  Henry  IV.  of  France 
— was  directed  quite  frankly,  so  far  as  it  had  any  substance  at 
all,  against  the  [Holy  Empire] ;  was,  in  fact,  in  its  idea  at  least, 
little  more  than  a  strategical  move  in  the  secular  conflict  between 
France  and  Austria.  Yet,  though  Sully  says  that  its  realization 
would  have  dealt  a  mortal  blow  at  the  imperial  authority,  the 
emperor  was  to  be  the  chief  or  first  magistrate  of  this  new 
"Christian  Republic";  but,  in  order  to  put  an  end  to  Hapsburg 
dominance,  he  was  not  to  be  chosen  from  the  same  house  twice 
in  succession.  For  the  rest,  the  "Grand  Design,"  which  Sully 
says  was  first  suggested  by  Queen  Elizabeth,  was  a  singular  an- 
ticipation of  certain  modern  developments.  Italy,  for  instance, 
was  to  be  unified  as  a  "Republic  of  the  Church"  under  the  Pope 
(one  remembers  Gioberti's  dream),  and  the  dukes  of  Savoy 
were  to  become  kings  of  Lombardy;  while  the  independence  of 
Belgium  under  a  foreign  dynasty  is  foreshadowed  by  the  singu- 
lar idea  that  the  Low  Countries  should  be  carved  into  a  series 
of  fiefs  for  English  princes  or  "milords." 

As  for  the  General  Council  of  Europe,  over  which  the 
emperor  was  to  preside,  this  was  to  be  modeled,  with  certain 
necessary  modifications,  on  the  Amphictyonic  Council  of  Greece, 
and  to  consist  of  a  perpetual  senate  of  sixty-four  commissioners 
or  plenipotentiaries,  four  from  each  great  power,  two  from  each 
lesser  power,  renewable  every  three  years.  The  function  of  this 
senate  was  to  be  to  deliberate  on  affairs  as  they  arose ;  to  discuss 
matters  of  common  interest;  to  settle  disputes;  to  examine  into 

1  By  Walter  Alison  Phillips.  Reprinted  from  Books  and  Reading. 
1:88-95.  October,  1918.  Mr.  Phillips  is  author  of  "The  Confederation  of 
Europe"  from  which  this  excerpt  was  taken  originally. 


16  SELECTED    ARTICLES 

and  determine  all  civil,  political,  and  religious  suits  either  in 
Europe  itself  or  arising  out  of  the  relations  of  Europe  with  the 
world  outside. 

Such  was  the  Grand  Design,  which  Sully  recommended  in 
language  which  anticipates  that  of  the  rescript  of  the  Emperor 
Nicholas  II.  "He  found  the  secret  of  persuading  all  his  neigh- 
bors that  his  only  object  was  to  spare  himself  and  them  these 
immense  sums  which  it  costs  them  to  maintain  so  many  thous- 
ands of  fighting  men,  so  many  fortified  places,  and  other  mil- 
itary expenses ;  to  deliver  them  forever  from  the  fear  of  bloody 
catastrophes,  so  common  in  Europe;  to  secure  for  them  an  un- 
alterable repose,  so  that  all  the  princes  might  henceforth  live 
together  as  brothers." 

It  is  on  this  Grand  Design  that  all  other  projects  of  peace, 
directly  or  indirectly,  consciously  or  unconsciously,  are  based — 
from  that  which  Emeric  Cruce  gave  to  the  world  under  the  title 
of  "Le  Nouveau  Cynee,"  two  years  before  Grotius  published  his 
"Le  Jure  Belli  et  Pads,"  to  the  latest  program  of  the  modern 
peace  societies.  It  inspired  the  "Projet  de  Paix  Perpetuelle" 
of  the  Abbe  de  St.  Pierre,  and  through  him  the  Emperor 
Alexander  I.'s  idea  of  a  universal  Holy  Alliance.  It  may  have 
played  its  part  in  forming  the  schemes  of  one  whose  name  is 
not  usually  associated  with  projects  of  peace — Napoleon.  Among 
the  conversations  of  the  great  emperor  recorded  by  the  Comte 
de  Las  Cases,  in  his  "Memorial  de  Sainte  Helene,"  is  one  in 
which  Napoleon  explains  the  grand  design  which  had  underlain 
all  his  policy.  He  had  aimed,  he  said,  at  concentrating  the  great 
European  peoples,  divided  hitherto  by  a  multiplicity  of  artificial 
boundaries,  into  homogeneous  nations,  which  he  would  have 
formed  into  a  confederation  bound  together  "by  unity  of  codes, 
principles,  opinions,  feelings,  and  interests."  At  the  head  of  the 
league,  under  the  aegis  of  his  empire,  was  to  have  been  a  central 
assembly,  modeled  on  the  American  Congress  or  the  Am- 
phictyonic  Assembly  of  Greece,  to  watch  over  the  common  weal 
of  "the  great  European  family."  Whether  this  plan  had  ever 
been  seriously  contemplated  or  not,  it  is  easy  to  recognize  in  it 
the  source  of  its  inspiration. 

The  "Projet  de  Traite  pour  rendre  la  Paix  Perpetuelle"  of 
the  Abbe  de  St.  Pierre  was  published  in  1713,  immediately  after 
the  signature  of  the  Treaty  of  Utrecht.     Its  immediate  effect 


A   LEAGUE   OF   NATIONS  17 

was,  of  course,  insignificant.  The  abbe,  Rousseau  scornfully 
said,  was  trying  to  do  by  publishing  a  book  what  Henry  IV.  had 
failed  to  do  with  the  power  of  France  behind  him,  and  with  the 
aid  of  the  universal  dread  of  Austrian  ambitions,  which  sup- 
plied a  stronger  motive  than  any  care  for  common  interests. 
But  the  abbe's  project  was  destined  to  exert  considerable  prac- 
tical influence  later,  and  this  gives  to  his  proposals  and  to  the 
comments  of  his  critics  a  permanent  interest. 

The  social  order  of  Europe,  he  urges,  is  still  largely  de- 
termined by  the  passions  rather  than  by  reason.  We  are  in  civil 
relations  with  our  fellow  citizens,  but  with  the  rest  of  the  world 
we  are  in  the  state  of  nature.  Thus  we  have  abolished  private 
wars,  only  in  order  to  set  aflame  general  wars,  which  are  a 
thousand  times  more  terrible;  and  in  forming  partial  alliances 
we  make  ourselves,  in  effect,  enemies  of  the  human  race.  Now, 
Christianity,  he  argues  has  given  to  the  nations  of  Europe,  in 
religion,  morals,  and  customs,  and  even  in  laws,  the  impress  of 
a  single  society — to  such  a  point  that  those  peoples  which,  like 
the  Turks,  have  become  European  in  a  geographical  sense  with- 
out becoming  Christians  have  been  regarded  as  strangers;  and 
between  the  members  of  this  commonwealth  "the  ancient  image 
of  the  Roman  Empire  has  continued  to  form  a  sort  of  bond." 

But  the  public  law  of  Europe,  not  being  established  or  au- 
thorized in  concert,  having  no  foundation  of  general  principle, 
and  varying  incessantly  in  different  times  and  places,  is  full  of 
contradictory  rules,  which  can  only  be  reconciled  by  the  right  of 
the  stronger.  Now,  every  society  is  based  on  a  consciousness  of 
common  interests,  while  all  divisions  are  caused  by  interests  that 
are  opposed,  and  both  common  and  private  interests  may  vary 
with  a  thousand  changes  of  circumstance.  In  every  society, 
then,  it  is  necessary  that  there  should  be  a  coercive  power  to 
command  and  concert  the  movements  of  its  members,  and,  to 
form  a  solid  and  durable  European  confederation,  it  would  be 
necessary  to  place  all  its  constituent  states  in  such  a  condition 
of  mutual  dependence  that  no  one  of  them  should  be  in  a  posi- 
tion to  resist  the  rest.  If,  under  the  system  of  the  balance  of 
power,  states  are  limited  in  their  opportunities  for  aggression, 
what  would  their  position  be  when  there  is  a  great  armed  league, 
ever  ready  to  prevent  those  who  might  wish  to  destroy  or  resist 
it?    Such  a  league  would  not  waste  its  time  in  idle  deliberations, 


18  SELECTED    ARTICLES 

but  would  form  an  effective  power,  able  to  force  the  ambitious 
to  keep  within  the  terms  of  the  general  treaty. 

The  nucleus  or  model  of  such  a  league  was  already  in  ex- 
istence in  the  "Germanic  Body,"  as  constituted  by  the  Treaty 
of  Westphalia — the  "conservative  force  of  Europe,"  since  it  was 
strong  for  defense  but  powerless  for  attack.  Now,  since  the 
Treaty  of  Westphalia  was  the  basis  of  the  European  system — the 
abbe  argues — German  public  law  was  in  a  sense  that  of  all 
Europe.  His  project  was  tfyen,  in  effect,  to  remodel  Europe 
somewhat  on  the  lines  of  the  empire  as  it  was  after  1648.  Its 
provisions  are  as  follows : 

1.  The  sovereigns  are  to  contract  a  perpetual  and  irrevocable  alliance, 
and  to  name  plenipotentiaries  to  hold,  in  a  determined  spot,  a  permanent 
diet  or  congress,  in  which  all  differences  between  the  contracting  parties 
are  to  be  settled  by  arbitration  or  judicial  decision. 

2.  The  number  of  the  sovereigns  sending  plenipotentiaries  to  the  con- 
gress is  to  be  specified,  together  with  those  who  are  to  be  invited  to 
accede  to  the  treaty.  The  presidency  of  the  congress  is  to  be  exercised  by 
the  sovereigns  in  turn  at  stated  intervals,  the  order  of  rotation  and  term 
of  office  being  carefully  defined.  In  like  manner  the  quota  to  be  con- 
tributed by  each  to  the  common  fund,  and  its  method  of  collection, .  are 
to  be  carefully  defined. 

3.  The  confederation  thus  formed  is  to  guarantee  to  each  of  its 
members  the  sovereignty  of  the  territories  it  actually  possesses,  as  well  as 
the  succession,  whether  hereditary  or  elective,  according  to  the  fundamental 
laws  of  each  country.  To  avoid  disputes,  actual  possession  and  the  latest 
treaties  are  to  be  taken  as  the  basis  of  the  mutual  rights  of  the  con- 
tracting powers,  while  all  future  disputes  are  to  be  settled  by  arbitration 
of  the  diet. 

4.  The  congress  is  to  define  the  cases  which  would  involve  offending 
states  being  put  under  the  ban  of  Europe. 

5.  The  powers  are  to  agree  to  arm  and  take  the  offensive,  in  com- 
mon and  at  the  common  expense,  against  any  state  thus  banned,  until  it 
shall  have  submitted  to  the  common  will. 

6.  The  plenipotentiaries  in  congress,  on  instructions  from  their  sov- 
ereigns, shall  have  power  to  make  such  rules  as  they  shall  judge  im- 
portant with  a  view  to  securing  for  the  European  Republic  and  each  of  its 
members  all  possible  advantages. 

It  is  impossible  to  examine  this  project  without  being  struck 
by  the  fact  that  there  is  scarcely  one  of  its  provisions  which  does 
not  emerge,  at  least  as  a  subject  of  debate  among  the  powers, 
during  the  years  of  European  reconstruction  after  1814.  This 
fact  is,  perhaps,  not  the  least  striking  on  what  may  be  called  its 
negative  side.  In  the  Abbe  de  St.  Pierre's  project  there  is  no 
provision  made  for  even  an  honorary  preeminence  of  the  em- 
peror; there  is  also  no  provision  made  for  any  representation 
other  than  that  of  the  sovereigns.  From  this  vision  of  perpetual 
peace  the  venerable  phantom  of  the  Holy  Empire  has  vanished 
all  but  completely;  this  churchman  and  apostle  of  international 


A   LEAGUE   OF   NATIONS  19 

union  has  as  little  use  as  the  powers  of  the  Grand  Alliance  for 
"the  center  of  political  unity,"  against  the  abolition  of  which  at 
the  Congress  of  Vienna  Cardinal  Consalvi  was  to  protest  in  the 
name  of  the  Roman  Church.  He  knows  nothing  too  of  nation- 
ality as  the  term  came  to  be  understood  in  the  nineteenth 
century;  for  him,  as  later  for  Metternich,  a  "nation"  is  but  the 
aggregate  of  people  bound  together  by  allegiance  to  a  common 
sovereign — a  conception  which,  I  may  add,  would  greatly  facili- 
tate the  establishment  of  an  international  system,  did  it  but 
answer  to  the  facts.  Of  popular  rights,  as  developed  by  the 
Revolution,  he  of  course  knew  nothing. 

Apart  from  the  generally  contemptuous  reception  which  the 
abbe's  project  met  with  in  that  age  of  Machiavellian  statecraft, 
the  omissions  above  noted  met  with  particular  criticism  during 
the  eighteenth  century.  Leibnitz,  to  whom  the  abbe  submitted 
his  scheme,  held  that  in  its  general  idea  it  was  both  feasible  and 
desirable.  He  had,  he  said,  seen  similar  proposals  made  in  the 
"Nouveau  Cyne"  and  in  a  book  by  the  Landgrave  Ernest  of 
Hesse-Rheinfels  entitled  "Le  Catholique  Discret,"  and  Henry 
IV.,  though  his  scheme  was  aimed  at  Austria,  had  clearly  be- 
lieved it  to  be  practicable.  For  Leibnitz,  however,  the  subordina- 
tion of  the  empire  was  a  serious  blot.  It  had  been  a  maxim  of 
international  law  for  centuries  that  the  emperor  was  the  tem- 
poral head  of  Christendom,  and  jurisconsults  had  reasoned  on 
this  basis.  The  empire  had  become  weak,  partly  owing  to  the 
Reformation,  partly  owing  to  the  alienation  of  its  revenues  and 
its  consequent  incapacity  to  enforce  the  decisions  of  the  courts. 
But  the  dignity  and  precedence  of  the  emperor  survived,  and  he 
still  possessed  some  rights  of  direction  in  Christendom.  "I  do 
not  think  it  would  be  just,"  he  says,  "to  destroy  all  at  once  the 
authority  of  the  Roman  Empire,  which  has  lasted  so  many  cen- 
turies. .  .  .  Jurisconsults  know  that  one  does  not  lose  one's 
rights,  nor  even  their  possession,  because  there  has  been  no 
occasion  to  exercise  them;  and  that  it  is  not  necessary  even  to 
insist  on  them,  save  where  those  who  owe  these  rights  declare 
that  they  wish  to  repudiate  their  obligation." 

He  goes  on  to  point  out  certain  respects  in  which  the  system 
of  the  empire  is  superior  to  that  suggested  by  St.  Pierre.  The 
Tribunal  of  the  Imperial  Chamber  (Reichskammergericht) ,  for 
instance,  consists  of  judges  and  assessors  who  are  free  to  follow 


20  SELECTED    ARTICLES 

their  consciences,  not  being  bound  by  the  instructions  of  the 
princes  and  states  that  nominated  them.  Moreover,  in  the 
abbe's  project  there  is  no  provision  for  the  hearing  of  the  com- 
plaints of  subjects  against  their  sovereigns,  while  in  the  empire 
subjects  can  plead  against  their  princes  or  their  magistrates. 

The  comment  of  Leibnitz  is  interesting  because  it  anticipates 
the  objection  which,  a  hundred  years  later,  Castlereagh  consid- 
ered fatal  to  the  system  of  guarantees,  precisely  similar  to  that 
suggested  in  the  third  article  of  St.  Pierre's  project,  which  the 
reactionary  powers  sought  to  formulate  at  Aix-la-Chapelle  and 
did  formulate  in  the  Troppau  Protocol.  The  Abbe  de  St.  Pierre 
pointed  out  how  the  proposals  in  this  article  would  not  weaken 
but  strengthen  the  princes,  by  guaranteeing  to  each  of  them  "not 
only  their  states  against  all  foreign  invasion,  but  also  their  au- 
thority against  all  rebellions  of  their  subjects."  In  a  memoran- 
dum on  the  treaties  presented  to  the  powers  at  Aix-la-Chapelle 
Castlereagh  wrote: 

The  idea  of  an  Alliance  Solidaire  by  which  each  state  shall  be  bound 
to  support  the  state  of  succession,  government,  and  possession  within  all 
other  states  from  violence  and  attack,  upon  condition  of  receiving  for  itself 
a  similar  guarantee,  must  be  understood  as  morally  implying  the  previous 
establishment  of  such  a  system  of  general  government  as  may  secure  and 
enforce  upon  all  kings  and  nations  an  internal  system  of  peace  and  justice. 
Till  the  mode  of  constructing  such  a  system  shall  be  devised,  the  con- 
sequence is  inadmissible,  as  nothing  could  be  more  immoral,  or  more 
prejudicial  to  the  character  of  government  generally,  than  the  idea  that 
their  force  was  collectively  to  be  prostituted  to  the  support  of  established 
power,  without  any  consideration  of  the  extent  to  which  it  was  abused. 

In  writing  this,  Castlereagh  was  unconsciously  repeating  and 
expanding  a  comment  on  the  abbe's  third  article  made  long  be- 
fore by  Rousseau,  who  in  his  "Jugement  sur  ia  paix  Perpetuelle" 
had  written: 

One  cannot  guarantee  princes  against  the  revolt  of  their  subjects  with- 
out at  the  same  time  guaranteeing  subjects  against  the  tyranny  of  princes. 
Otherwise  the  institution  could  not  possibly  survive. 

With  Rousseau  we  come  to  the  eve  of  the  revolutionary  age ; 
universal  peace  is  to  be  the  outcome,  not  of  a  fraternal  union 
of  princes,  but  of  the  brotherhood  of  an  enlightened  humanity. 
"The  projet  de  paix  perpetuelle,"  Voltaire  wrote,  "is  absurd,  not 
in  itself,  but  in  the  manner  of  its  proposal."  "The  peace 
imagined  by  the  Abbe  de  St.  Pierre  is  a  chimera,  which  will  not 
subsist  between  princes  any  more  than  between  elephants  and 
rhinoceroses,   between  wolves   and   dogs.     Carnivorous  animals 


A   LEAGUE   OF   NATIONS  21 

will  always  tear  each  other  to  pieces  at  the  first  opportunity." 
Wars  of  ambition  will  cease  when  the  mass  of  people  realize 
that  it  is  only  a  few  generals  and  ministers  who  have  anything 
to  gain  by  them ;  wars  of  commerce  will  cease  with  the  universal 
establishment  of  free  trade;  wars  of  religion  with  the  spread  of 
the  spirit  of  tolerance.  As  for  questions  of  succession,  these 
are  for  the  people  to  decide.  "The  establishment  of  a  European 
Diet,"  he  continues,  "might  be  very  useful  for  deciding  con- 
troversies about  the  extradition  of  criminals  or  the  laws  of  com- 
merce, or  for  settling  the  principles  on  which  cases  in  which  the 
laws  of  different  nations  are  invoked  should  be  decided.  The 
sovereigns  should  concert  a  code  according  to  which  such  dis- 
putes would  be  settled,  and  should  engage  to  submit  to  its  de- 
cisions or  to  the  final  arbitrament  of  their  sword — the  necessary 
condition  for  the  establishment,  durability,  and  usefulness  of 
such  a  tribunal.  It  is  possible  to  persuade  a  prince,  who  com- 
mands two  hundred  thousand  men,  that  it  is  not  to  his  interest 
to  defend  his  rights  or  his  pretensions  by  force;  but  it  is  absurd 
to  propose  to  him  to  renounce  them."  Elsewhere  Voltaire  asks : 
"What  is  necessary  in  order  to  govern  men,  one's  brothers  (and 
what  brothers!),  by  right?"  And  he  answers:  "The  free  con- 
sent of  the  peoples." 

The  outbreak  of  the  French  revolution,  then — as  the  triumph 
of  popular  forces  over  those  of  the  divine  right  of  kings — was 
hailed  by  many  as  heralding  the  dawn  of  an  era  of  universal 
peace.  A  single  quotation  may  serve  to  illustrate  a  widespread 
hope  which  was  destined  to  be  so  utterly  belied.  At  a  meeting  of 
the  Revolution  Society  to  celebrate  the  first  anniversary  of 
the  capture  of  the  Bastille,  Dr.  Price — the  first  object  of  Burke's 
attack  in  the  "Reflections" — thus  apostrophized  the  leaders  of  the 
French  Revolution :  "O  heavenly  philanthropists,  well  do  you 
deserve  the  admiration,  not  only  of  your  own  country,  but  of  all 
countries!  You  have  already  determined  to  renounce  forever 
all  views  of  conquest  and  all  offensive  wars.  This  is  an  in- 
stance of  wisdom  and  attention  to  human  rights  which  has  no 
example.  But  you  will  do  more;  you  will  invite  Great  Britain 
to  join  you  in  this  determination  and  to  enter  into  a  compact 
with  you  for  promoting  peace  on  earth,  good  will  among  men. 
.  .  .  Thus  united  the  two  kingdoms  will  be  omnipotent.  They 
will    soon    draw    into    their   confederation    Holland   and    other 


22  SELECTED    ARTICLES 

countries  on  this  side  of  the  globe,  the  United  States  of  Amer- 
ica on  the  other,"  and  so  on. 

Five  years  later,  in  1795,  Immanuel  Kant  published  his 
treatise  "On  Perpetual  Peace"  (Zum  ewigen  Frieden),  an  essay- 
on  the  construction  of  an  international  system  on  a  philosophical 
basis.  This  basis  he  finds  in  the  development  of  enlightened 
self-interest  among  the  peoples  and  the  growth  of  the  moral 
idea,  which  has  already  made  men  open  to  the  influence  of  the 
mere  conception  of  law,  as  though  this  in  itself  possessed 
physical  power.  Perpetual  peace  will  thus,  he  argues,  ul- 
timately be  guaranteed  by  nature  itself,  through  the  mechanism 
inherent  in  human  inclinations.  "Seek  first,"  he  says,  "the  king- 
dom of  pure  practical  reason  and  its  justice,  and  your  goal  (the 
benefit  of  perpetual  peace)  will  be  added  unto  you  of  itself." 

But  this  moral  idea  and  this  pure  practical  reason  can,  in 
Kant's  opinion,  only  be  developed  fully  under  republican  institu- 
tions, because  the  people  will  never  vote  for  war!  His  prac- 
tical suggestions  for  an  international  organization,  therefore,  in- 
clude these  articles : 

1.  The  civil  constitution  in  every  state  is  to  be  republican.  But  this 
republicanism  is  not  to  be  democracy,  which  is  opposed  to  liberty.  The 
true  republican  government  is  representative. 

2.  The  law  of  nations  is  to  be  established  on  a  federation  of  free 
states.  Such  a  great  federal  republic,  if  once  established,  would  gradually 
attract  other  states  and  so  ultimately  include  all. 

It  is  perhaps  not  wholly  without  significance  that  a  French 
translation  of  Kant's  treatise  was  published  at  Paris  in  1814  dur- 
ing the  first  occupation  by  the  Allies.  It  is  also  interesting  to 
note  that  in  this  same  year  was  published  the  "Reorganisation 
de  la  Societe  Europeene"  of  the  Comte  de  Saint-Simon,  who 
later  on  was  to  proclaim  his  appreciation  of  the  benefit  conferred 
upon  Europe  by  the  Holy  Alliance.  The  language  in  which  he 
does  so  is,  I  think,  worth  quoting  here.  In  the  third  of  his 
"Opinions  philosophiques  a  l'usage  du  XlXme  siecle,"  he  writes : 

The  interests  and  the  mcst  widespread  opinion  of  Europe  called  upon 
the  kings  to  unite,  in  order  to  exercise  the  supreme  direction  over  the 
social  interests  of  Europe.  In  order  that  the  transition  from  the  feudal 
regime  to  the  industrial  system  might  take  place  in  a  peaceful  manner,  it 
was  necessary  that  a  supreme  power  should  be  established.  The  Holy 
Alliance  fulfills  this  condition  to  perfection;  it  dominates  all  spiritual  and 
temporal  powers.  .  .  .  Finally,  thanks  to  the  formation  of  the  Holy 
Alliance,  European  society  is  in  a  position  to  reorganize  itself  very  securely, 
from  the  moment  that  a  clear  public  opinion  shall  have  been  formed  as  to 
the.  institutions  which  correspond  to  the  present  state  of  its  civilization. 


A   LEAGUE   OF   NATIONS  23 


THE   HOLY  ALLIANCE1 

Before  "the  sun  of  Austerlitz"  had  risen,  the  Tsar  Alex- 
ander had  approached  Great  Britain  with  proposals  which, 
after  Waterloo,  ripened  into  the  Holy  Alliance.  That  strange 
concert  of  the  Great  Powers  at  the  outset  was  quite  free  from 
reactionary  tendencies.  Directed  primarily  against  France,  as 
the  powder-magazine  of  Europe,  it  was  avowedly  a  league  of 
sovereigns  pledged  to  govern  in  accordance  with  the  principles 
of  the  Gospel  of  Christ — the  kings  were  to  regard  each  other 
as  brothers,  and  their  peoples  as  their  children.  In  a  letter 
to  Count  Lieven,  his  ambassador  in  London,  the  Tsar  declared 
that  "the  sole  and  exclusive  object  of  the  alliance  can  only  be 
the  maintenance  of  peace  and  the  union  of  all  the  moral  inter- 
ests of  the  peoples  which  Divine  Providence  has  been  pleased 
to  unite  under  the  banner  of  the  Cross."  And  the  Alliance 
proposed  to  secure  the  peace  of  the  world  by  jointly  guarantee- 
ing to  each  Power  the  territories  assigned  to  it  by  the  Congress 
of  Vienna.  In  other  words,  the  object  of  the  Alliance  was  to 
perpetuate  peace  on  the  basis  of  the  status  quo. 

With  all  their  thoughts  colored  by  recollections  of  the 
French  Revolution,  it  is  not  surprising  that  some  of  the  as- 
sembled sovereigns  thought  that  the  danger  to  France  was 
quite  as  likely  to  come  from  internal  commotions  as  from  na- 
tional greed,  or  dynastic  quarrels.  Then  came  the  idea  of  what 
we  should  now  call  "a  preventive  war."  To  the  league  of  the 
kings  it  seemed  clearly  their  duty  to  nip  any  revolutionary 
movement  in  the  bud  as  quickly  as  possible.  As  early  as  1818  we 
find  Castlereagh  warning  the  British  Cabinet  as  to  this  danger 
to  the  liberties  of  nations.  He  reports  that  the  Tsar  and  his 
Minister,  Capo  d'Istria,  "were,  in  conversation,  disposed  to  push 
their  ideas  very  far  indeed,  in  the  sense  of  all  the  Powers  of 
Europe  being  bound  together  in  a  common  league,  guaranteeing 
to  each  other  the  existing  order  of  things,  in  thrones  as  well  as 
in  territories,  all  being  bound  to  march,  if  requisite,  against  the 
first  Power  that  offended,  either  by  her  ambition  or  her  revolu- 
tionary transgression."     Two   years   later  when   Great   Britain 

1  From  "A  Future  Machinery  of  Peace,"  by  J.  G.  Snead-Cox.  Living 
Age.     292:771-9.     March  31,  19 17. 


24  SELECTED    ARTICLES 

was  getting  restive  and,  indeed,  thoroughly  alarmed  at  the 
Absolutist  tendencies  of  the  Alliance,  Russia,  Austria  and  Prus- 
sia signed  the  famous  Protocol  of  Troppau,  which  laid  down 
the  principle  of  intervention  in  the  case  of  revolutionary  move- 
ments, in  these  words: 

States  which  have  undergone  a  change  of  government  due  to  revolu- 
tion, the  results  of  which  threaten  other  States,  ipso  facto,  cease  to  be 
members  of  the  European  Alliance,  and  remain  excluded  from  it  until 
their  situation  gives  guarantees  for  legal  order  and  stability.  If,  owing 
to  such  alterations,  immediate  danger  threatens  other  States,  the  Powers 
bind  themselves,  by  peaceful  means,  or  if  need  be  by  arms,  to  bring  back 
the  guilty  State  into  the  bosom  of  the  Great  Alliance. 

It  is  unnecessary  to  trace  in  detail  how  the  rift  within  the 
lute  gradually  widened.  For  England,  the  breaking  point  was 
reached  when,  in  1822,  France,  under  the  guidance  of  Chateau- 
briand and  as  the  instrument  of  the  Alliance,  invaded  Spain 
to  crush  the  Liberal  movement,  and  restore  the  power  of  the 
Bourbons.  Canning  ended  the  negotiations  with  the  words : 
"England  is  under  no  obligation  to  interfere,  or  to  assist  in  in- 
terfering, in  the  internal  concerns  of  independent  nations."  He 
went  on  to  say  that,  as  he  understood  them,  England's  engage- 
ments "had  reference  wholly  to  the  state  of  territorial  possession 
settled  at  the  peace."  The  Alliance  might  have  survived  the  de- 
fection of  Great  Britain,  and  it  seemed  strengthened  by  the 
easy  success  of  the  campaign  in  behalf  of  Ferdinand  VII.,  but 
it  was  terribly  shaken  by  the  revolutions  of  1830  and  1848,  which 
twice  emptied  the  throne  of  France.  The  marching  of  the 
Russian  armies  into  Hungary  in  1849,  in  the  interests  of  the 
House  of  Hapsburg,  may  be  regarded  as  the  last  fruits  of  the 
Alliance.  Its  final  collapse  was  due  to  what  the  Tsar  Nicholas 
regarded  as  his  betrayal  by  Austria  at  the  time  of  the  Crimean 


A   LEAGUE   OF   NATIONS  25 


WILLIAM  PENN'S  PLAN  FOR  WORLD  PEACE1 

The  problem  of  world  organization  has  for  centuries  at- 
tracted the  attention  of  many  of  the  world's  greatest  construc- 
tive thinkers.  In  1693  William  Penn  found  time  in  the  midst 
of  his  great  struggle  for  religious  liberty  and  in  the  midst  of  a 
world  war  to  write  his  Essay  toward  the  Present  and  Future 
Peace  of  Europe.  The  literature  on  peace  and  world  organiza- 
tion was  then  very  meager,  and  there  appears  to  be  no  evidence 
that  Penn  was  acquainted  with  such  as  there  was,  beyond  the 
Great  Design  of  Henry  IV.  and  his  Minister  Sully,  which  was 
after  all  so  largely  devoted  to  redrawing  the  map  of  Europe 
as  to  afford  comparatively  little  guidance  beyond  suggesting  the 
idea  of  world  organization.  And  yet  Penn's  essay,  it  is  believed 
contains  every  substantive  idea  which  has  ever  found  expression 
as  regards  international  organization,  arbitration  and  peace. 

Since  then,  the  world  has  merely  been  endeavoring  to  catch 
up  with  Penn,  to  fill  in  the  details  of  the  outline  sketch  which 
he  drew,  to  furnish  the  evidence  needed  in  support  of  the 
general  propositions  which  he  advanced,  and  to  translate  his 
dream  into  reality.  In  this  work  a  host  of  wise  and  open- 
minded  men  of  every  nation  have  contributed,  among  whom 
might  be  mentioned  Saint  Pierre  in  France,  Kant  in  Germany, 
Bentham  in  England  and  Ladd  in  the  United  States,  coming 
down  through  more  than  200  years  to  President  Wilson's 
memorable  address  to  the  Senate  of  January  22d  last,  in  which 
he  bravely  took  his  reputation  as  a  practical  statesman  into  his 
hands  and,  speaking  both  as  an  individual  and  also  "as  the  re- 
sponsible head  of  a  great  government,"  dared  to  make  the  adop- 
tion of  the  dream  of  the  great  philosophers  and  philanthropists 
of  the  past  a  question  of  the  practical  politics  of  to-day. 

Penn  was  a  Quaker.  It  would  be  scarcely  denied  that  he 
was  a  good  Quaker.  He  not  only  believed  in  the  inherent 
wickedness  of  war  but  in  its  futility.  He  understood  with 
John  Bright,  that  other  great  English  Quaker  statesman,  that 
"force  is  never  a  remedy"  and  that  men  can  no  more  be  made 
righteous  by  treaties  enforced  by  armies  than  they  can  by  laws 

1  From  "International  Organization:  Executive  and  Administrative," 
by  William  C.  Dennis,  member  of  the  District  of  Columbia  Bar.  In  the 
Proceedings  of  the  American   Society  of  International  Law.      1917:91-100. 


26  SELECTED    ARTICLES 

enforced  by  the  policemen.  He  understood  that  true  peace,  the 
peace  of  the  soul,  comes  from  within  because  a  spirit  has  en- 
tered the  soul  of  man  "which  taketh  away  the  occasion  for 
war."  At  the  same  time  he  was  the  founder  of  Pennsylvania 
and  he  knew,  as  he  quaintly  says,  referring  of  course  to  ordinary 
civil  peace,  not  the  peace  of  the  spirit,  that  "peace  is  maintained 
by  justice  which  is  the  fruit  of  government  as  government  is 
from  society  and  society  from  consent,"  and  he  believed  a 
hundred  and  fifty  years  before  Darwin  that  the  life  history  of 
the  individual  is  the  miniature  of  the  life  history  of  the  race,  or, 
as  he  puts  it,  "  that  by  the  same  rules  of  justice  and  prudence  by 
which  parents  and  masters  govern  their  families,  and  magistrates 
their  cities,  and  estates  their  republics  and  princes  and  kings 
their  principalities  and  kingdoms,  Europe  may  obtain  and  pre- 
serve peace  among  her  sovereignties." 

So  believing  and  knowing  that  civil  peace  among  individuals 
is  maintained  by  force,  actual  or  potential,  he  had  no  hesitation 
in  proposing  to  maintain  peace  among  nations  in  the  same  man- 
ner. Further  than  that  he  had  no  hesitation  about  compelling 
a  recalcitrant  nation  by  force  to  become  a  member  of  the  league 
which  he  proposed  and  which  he  styled  "the  sovereign  or  im- 
perial diet,  parliament  or  state  of  Europe"  and  to  submit  to  a 
proper  reduction  of  armaments.  Answering  the  objection  which 
might  be  raised  "that  the  strongest  and  richest  sovereignty  will 
never  agree  to  it,"  he  replies,  "I  answer  to  the  first  part  he  is 
not  stronger  than  all  the  rest  and  for  that  reason  you  should 
promote  this  and  compel  him  into  it,  especially  before  he  be  so, 
for  then  it  will  be  too  late  to  deal  with  such  a  one." 


A    LEAGUE    OF    NATIONS x 

At  the  present  moment  the  whole  world  is  interested  in  the 
establishment  of  a  League  of  Nations.  Although  there  is  noth- 
ing novel  in  this  perennial  topic  of  discussion,  illustrious  support 
for  the  project  has  now  been  obtained.  A  further  interest 
attaches  to  the  present  propaganda,  since  it  is  generally  acknowl- 
edged  that   the    approaching   conclusion   of    the   great   war   in 

1  By  Ellery  C.  Stowell,  Associate  Professor  of  International  Law, 
Columbia  University.     Nation.     103:536-8.     December  7,  1916. 


A   LEAGUE   OF   NATIONS  2^ 

Europe  will  be  an  opportune  moment  for  improving  the  con- 
stitution of  our  international  relations.  The  magnitude  of  the 
present  conflict  and  the  advance  in  civilization  will  make  it  pos- 
sible to  effect  reforms  much  more  radical  and  far-reaching  than 
at  any  previous  period.  In  the  midst  of  the  tragic  events  of  the 
war  many  philosophers  and  philanthropists  are  looking  forward 
to  the  realization  of  this  League  of  Nations,  as  in  the  nature  of 
an  atonement  for  the  degradation  of  carnage  into  which  we 
have  been  plunged.  It  is  interesting  to  compare  their  hopes 
and  prophecies  with  an  important  proposal  made  by  a  philos- 
opher of  Massachusetts  in  the  year  1840. * 

William  Ladd's  own  words  were :  "It  is  proposed  to  organize 
a  Court  of  Nations,  composed  of  as  many  members  as  the 
Congress  of  Nations  shall  previously  agree  upon,  say,  two  from 
each  of  the  Powers  represented  at  the  Congress"  (p.  34).  The 
members  of  this  court  were  to  enjoy  the  same  privileges  and 
immunities  as  Ambassadors  and  to  give  their  verdicts  by  a 
majority.  In  regard  to  their  jurisdiction,  Mr.  Ladd  proposed: 
"All  cases  submitted  to  the  court  should  be  judged  by  the  true 
interpretation  of  existing  treaties,  and  by  the  laws  enacted  by 
the  Congress  and  ratified  by  the  nations  represented;  and  where 
these  treaties  and  laws  fail  of  establishing  the  point  at  issue, 
they  should  judge  the  cause  by  the  principles  of  equity  and 
justice." 

The  author,  in  an  illuminating  discussion  of  the  objections 
which  might  be  raised  against  such  a  court,  enumerates  them 
substantially  as  follows :  that  it  was  an  innovation ;  that  it  gave 
too  much  power  to  a  few  men;  that  there  was  no  machinery 
for  the  enforcing  of  the  decrees  of  the  court;  that  it  would  be 
dangerous  to  the  maintenance  of  existing  forms  of  government; 
that  republics,  being  in  a  minority  among  the  nations,  would 
not  have  so  good  a  chance  of  obtaining  justice;  that  there  ex- 
isted already  a  satisfactory  system  based  upon  many  precedents 
of  submitting  international  disputes  to  arbitration.  Ladd  gives 
a  convincing  refutation  to  many  of  the  arguments  against  this 
latter  system,  and  obtained  a  practical  vindication  when  the 
calling  of  the  first  Hague  Conference  brought  to  pass  the  great 


1  "An  Essay  on  the  Congress  of  Nations,"  by  William  Ladd.  Reprinted 
from  the  original  edition  for  the  Carnegie  Endowment  for  International 
Peace.      19 16. 


28  SELECTED    ARTICLES 

Congress  of  Nations  which  he  foretold.  This  Legislature  of 
the  World,  as  he  described  it,  became,  as  he  also  proposed,  the 
Constituent  Assembly  of  an  Arbitral  Tribunal.  The  Permanent 
Court  of  Arbitration  at  The  Hague  differed,  however,  in  one 
important  particular.  Instead  of  Ladd's  plan  of  two  repre- 
sentatives appointed  by  each  nation,  holding  office  during  good 
behavior,  and  rendering  their  decisions  by  a  majority  vote,  the 
Permanent  Court,  as  at  present  organized,  consists  of  a  list  of 
arbitrators — not  more  than  four  representatives  from  each  coun- 
try— who  are  appointed  for  terms  of  six  years,  which  may  be 
renewed.  They  serve  without  compensation  except  as  they  may 
be  especially  designated  to  act  as  arbitrators  in  some  case  which 
is  submitted  to  the  court. 

The  Hague  Court  is  evidently  a  compromise  between  the 
plan  proposed  by  Ladd  and  the  older  system  of  unlimited 
choice  for  the  selection  of  the  arbitrators.  Nevertheless,  it 
seems  to  be  a  happy  mean,  such  as  Ladd  himself  commends  as 
a  cautious  step  along  the  road  of  progress. 


THE  HAGUE  AND  PEACE  CONFERENCES  l 
The  First  Hague  Conference 

On  May  18,  1899,  one  hundred  delegates  of  the  twenty-six 
nations  that  had  representatives  at  St.  Petersburg  met  in  the 
Queen's  House  in  the  Wood  at  The  Hague  to  consider  the 
Czar's  rescript  issued  in  August,  1898.  The  mightiest  monarch 
in  Christendom,  appalled  that  the  increased  cost  of  armaments 
was  bringing  about  the  very  results  armies  were  formed  to 
avert,  had  urged  the  nations  to  discuss  the  question  of  limita- 
tion and  reduction  of  armaments.  For  nearly  three  months  the 
Conference  in  three  committees  worked  steadily  on  its  prob- 
lems. The  service  rendered  by  the  English,  French,  and  other 
commissioners  was  very  great.  Vast  numbers  of  letters  and 
telegrams  were  sent  from  America  to  Andrew  D.  White  and  the 
other   American    delegates   at    The    Hague,    and    at    a   critical 


1  From  "A  Primer  of  the  Peace  Movement,"  by  Lucia  Ames  Mead, 
National  Secretary  of  the  Woman's  Peace  Party.  8th  Ed.  Rev.  American 
Peace  Society. 


A   LEAGUE   OF   NATIONS  29 

moment  this  strong  expression  of  American  opinion  had  great 
weight.  Though  disarmament  was  not  definitely  arranged  for,  a 
Permanent  International  Tribunal,  as  the  necessary  first  step 
towards  it,  was  agreed  upon  by  the  delegates.  They  also  ar- 
ranged for  commissions  of  inquiry  and  methods  of  mediation 
and  conciliation  between  the  signatory  powers. 

Their  achievement  was  the  greatest  of  the  kind  in  human 
history.  The  delegates,  who  had  assembled  with  misgivings,  like 
those  at  our  Constitutional  Convention  in  1787,  parted  in  con- 
fidence and  hope. 

The  Hague  Court  was  opened  in  April,  1901.  A  fine  mansion 
was  purchased  for  it — to  be  used  until  the  Peace  Palace  pro- 
vided by  Mr.  Carnegie  is  opened — and  a  permanent  secretary 
installed.  It  has  now  a  board  of  one  hundred  and  thirty  judges 
from  the  countries  that  ratified  the  Conventions.  These  judges 
remain  at  home  until  selected  to  try  a  case.  Recourse  to  the 
Hague  Court  is  optional  until  nations  pledge  themselves  by  ar- 
bitration treaties  to  use  it.  Several  jurists  have  repeatedly  been 
asked  to  serve  at  The  Hague,  and  thus  have  in  a  peculiar  sense 
become  international  judges. 

The  Hague  provision  for  Commissions  of  Inquiry  prevented 
strife  between  England  and  Russia  when  the  Russian  admiral 
in  the  North  Sea  fired  on  an  English  fishing  fleet  as  he  was  on 
his  way  to  meet  Admiral  Togo.  An  international  commission 
of  admirals  which  met  in  Paris  allayed  English  fury,  and  Russia 
paid  the  widows  and  orphans  more  than  $300,000  for  her 
blunder.  The  Hague  provision  for  mediation  was  used  by  Pres- 
ident Roosevelt  when  he  invited  Russia  and  Japan  to  send  com- 
missioners to  settle  their  war  at  Portsmouth,  N.H. — one  of  the 
most  romantic  achievements  of  modern  history. 

The  Second  Hague   Conference 

In  June,  1907,  the  Second  Hague  Conference,  the  call  for 
which  had  been  delayed  by  the  Russo-Japanese  war  and  the 
Pan-American  Conference,  convened  with  256  delegates  from 
forty-four  nations,  representing  practically  the  power  and 
wealth  of  the  world.  Hon.  Joseph  H.  Choate  headed  the  Amer- 
ican delegation  and  presented  a  plea  for  a  Court  of  Arbitral 
Justice  at  The  Hague,  to  supplement  (and  not  abolish)  the  pres- 


30  SELECTED    ARTICLES 

ent  Arbitration  Tribunal.  This  was  agreed  upon.  .  .  .  The 
Porter-Drago  doctrine  arranged  for  the  peaceful  settlement  of 
difficulties  arising  from  non-payment  of  contractual  debts.  Ger- 
many, which  had  been  an  obstacle  to  progress  in  1899,  led  to 
the  establishment  of  a  Prize  Court,  to  adjust  ownership  of 
captures  in  war.  This  marks  the  first  real  concession  of  the 
absolute  right  of  sovereignty,  and  is  a  very  important  precedent. 
The  Conference  was  practically  unanimous  in  endorsing  the 
principle  of  obligatory  arbitration.  Among  provisions  agreed 
to  for  lessening  the  injustice  of  war  was  that  forbidding  bom- 
bardment of  unfortified  places. 

Peace  Congresses 

The  first  International  Peace  Congress  was  planned  in  Boston 
and  held  in  London  in  1843.  Of  its  three  hundred  delegates, 
thirty  were  from  the  United  States.  The  second  received  its 
impulse  from  Elihu  Burritt,  and  was  held  in  Brussels  in  1848. 
The  third,  in  Paris,  in  1849,  had  an  attendance  of  two  thousand, 
and  was  presided  over  by  Victor  Hugo.  The  fourth  was  in 
Frankfort  in  1850,  and  the  fifth  in  London  in  1851.  Burritt  was 
an  active  promoter  of  all  of  these  last. 

The  Peace  Congresses  were  revived  in  1889,  and  have  been 
held  in  London,  Rome,  Berne,  Chicago,  Antwerp,  Buda-Pesth, 
Hamburg,  Paris,  Glasgow,  Monaco,  Rouen,  Boston,  Lucerne, 
Milan,  Munich,  London,  Stockholm,  and  Geneva.  Since  the 
meeting  in  1903,  most  European  nations  have  signed  arbitration 
treaties  pledging  reference  to  The  Hague  Court,  and  France  and 
England,  unfriendly  to  each  other  for  centuries,  have  quietly 
settled  by  diplomacy  a  half-dozen  matters  any  one  of  which  in 
former  days  might  have  led  to  war.  The  mere  fact  of  a  World 
Court  being  ready  to  hear  disputes  causes  many  a  case  to  be 
peaceably  settled  out  of  court. 

The  International  Peace  Congress  of  1904  met  in  Boston  in 
October,  and  was  opened  by  Secretary  Hay.  It  was  by  far  the 
largest  International  Peace  Congress  ever  held,  and  was  fol- 
lowed by  great  meetings  in  many  American  cities. 

National  Peace  Congresses  in  addition  to  the  international 
have  been  held  in  England,  Germany,  France,  and  the  United 
States.    The  first  National  American  Peace  Congress   was  held 


A   LEAGUE   OF   NATIONS  31 

in  New  York  City  from  April  14-17,  1907,  to  arouse  public 
sentiment  regarding  the  points  to  be  considered  at  the  second 
Hague  Conference.  Secretary  Root  addressed  it,  and  many 
thousands  of  persons  attended  it.  The  Second  Congress  was  in 
Chicago  in  1909.  The  Third  National  Peace  Congress  in  191 1, 
at  Baltimore,  was  opened  by  President  Taft.  For  the  first  time 
since  Peace  Congresses  began,  the  head  of  a  great  nation  hon- 
ored it  by  his  presence. 

Two  National  Arbitration  Conferences  have  been  held  in 
this  country,  in  Washington,  in  1896  and  1904. 

The  Annual  Mohonk  Arbitration  Conferences  since  1895, 
to  which  Mr.  Albert  K.  Smiley  annually  invited  hundreds  of 
judges,  college  presidents,  captains  of  industry,  etc.,  have  had 
great  influence. 


OUR  ARBITRATION   TREATIES1 

The  Hague  Court  began  operation  in  1901,  and  since  that 
time  has  had  on  its  docket  17  cases,  of  which  15  have  been 
decided.  Its  operation  previous  to  the  Second  Hague  Confer- 
ence in  1907  demonstrated  that  while  it  was  sound  in  principle 
and  timely  in  appearance,  it  was  inadequate  because  it  was  not 
what  it  purported  to  be,  a  "permanent  court  of  arbitration." 
For  the  court  established  at  The  Hague  was  merely  a  panel  of 
judges  from  which  arbitrators  might  conveniently  be  chosen  by 
litigant  nations.  The  next  logical  step  in  advance  was  taken  by 
the  United  States.  Secretary  of  State  Root  saw  the  cogency 
of  the  arguments  for  a  court  consisting  of  permanent  judges, 
and  in  his  instructions  to  the  American  delegates  to  the  Second 
Hague  Conference  he  discussed  the  problem  involved  and  gave 
this  positive  direction: 

It  should  be  your  effort  to  bring  about  in  the  Second  Conference  a 
development  of  The  Hague  Tribunal  into  a  permanent  tribunal  composed 
of  judges  who  are  judicial  officers  and  nothing  else,  who  are  paid  adequate 
salaries,  who  have  no  other  occupation,  and  who  will  devote  their  entire 
time  to  the  trial  and  decision  of  international  causes  by  judicial  methods 
and  under  a  sense  of  judicial  responsibility. 

The  American  delegates  loyally  carried  out  the  desire  of 
their  Government.     Before  the  conference  was  over,  they  had 

1  From  "A  League  of  Nations."    Vol.  I.  p.  30-8.     October,  1917. 


32  SELECTED    ARTICLES 

enlisted  the  co-operation  of  Great  Britain  and  Germany  for 
their  plan,  which  was  complete,  except  for  a  method  of  success- 
fully apportioning  15  judges  among  44  states.  But  the  Amer- 
ican delegates  succeeded  in  having  the  principle  indorsed  in  the 
Final  Act  of  the  conference,  to  which  was  appended  the  entire 
project,  minus  details  respecting  the  composition  of  the  court. 
Though  the  conventions  signed  by  the  conference  required  rat- 
ification by  the  powers  to  become  binding,  the  Final  Act  did 
not;  so  that  while  the  project  failed  of  immediate  realization, 
the  wish  expressed  in  the  Final  Act  committed  44  states  of  the 
civilized  world  to  the  advisability  of  such  a  court  in  these 
words : 

The  conference  calls  the  attention  of  the  signatory  powers  to  the  advis- 
ability of  adopting  the  annexed  draft  convention  for  the  creation  of  a  Court 
of  Arbitral  Justice,  and  of  bringing  it  into  force  as  soon  as  an  agreement 
has  been  reached  respecting  the  selection  of  the  judges  and  the  constitu- 
tion of  the  court.  * 

With  the  idea  of  a  league  of  peace  backed  by  regulated  force 
already  prominently  launched  by  a  former  President  of  the 
United  States,  there  was  formed  in  New  York  at  almost  the 
time  when  Mr.  Roosevelt  was  speaking  at  Kristiania  an  or- 
ganization called  the  World  Federation  League.  This  organiza- 
tion proved  to  be  short-lived;  but  it  was  instrumental  in  having 
Congress  consider  and  pass  a  joint  resolution  providing  for  a 
commission  to  study  the  preservation  of  peace  and  the  establish- 
ment of  a  combined  force  for  its  maintenance.  This  resolution, 
which  was  approved  by  President  Taft  on  June  25,  1910,  is  of 
peculiar  significance  because  it  is  believed  to  be  the  first  attempt 
on  the  part  of  any  legislature  to  initiate  an  organization  of  the 
nations  of  the  world,  with  or  without  the  element  of  force.  The 
joint  resolution  as  passed  reads: 

[No.  43.]  Joint  Resolution  to  Authorize  the  Appointment  of  a  Com- 
mission in  Relation  to  Universal  Peace. 
Resolved  by  the  Senate  and  House  of  Representatives  of  the  United 
States  of  America  in  Congress  assembled.  That  a  commission  of  five  mem- 
bers be  appointed  by  the  President  of  the  United  States  to  consider  the 
expediency  of  utilizing  existing  international  agencies  for  the  purpose  of 
limiting  the  armaments  of  the  nations  of  the  world  by  international  agree- 
ment, and  of  constituting  the  combined  navies  of  the  world  an  international 
force  for  the  preservation  of  universal  peace,  and  to  consider  and  report 
upon    any    other    means    to    diminish    the  expenditures    of    government  for 

1  Scott,  Texts  of  the  Peace  Conference  at  The  Hague  1899  and  1907, 
138-139. 


A   LEAGUE   OF   NATIONS  33 

military  purposes  and  to  lessen  the  probabilities  of  war:  Provided,  That 
the  total  expense  authorized  by  this  Joint  Resolution  shall  not  exceed  the 
sum  of  ten  thousand  dollars  and  that  the  said  commission  shall  be  required 
to  make  final  report  within  two  years  from  the  date  of  the  passage  of  this 
resolution. 

Approved  June  25,  1910.1 

The  idea  was  in  advance  of  its  time,  even  though  it  correctly 
expressed  the  aspirations  of  the  American  Congress  and  the 
American  people.  When  the  Government  inquired  of  other 
states  as  to  their  attitude  on  the  matter  and  the  Department  of 
State  examined  the  world  situation  with  a  view  to  realizing 
the  purpose  intended,  it  was  found  that  action  was  not  possible. 
There  is  only  one  official  statement  respecting  the  matter  in 
American  public  records,  but  that  is  clear  and  accurately  reflects 
the  situation  at  the  time.  President  Taft  in  his  annual  message 
of  December  6,  1910,  wrote : 

I  have  not  as  yet  made  appointments  to  this  commission  because  I 
have  invited  and  am  awaiting  the  expression  of  foreign  governments  as 
to  their  willingness  to  co-operate  with  us  in  the  appointment  of  similar 
commissions  or  representatives  who  would  meet  with  our  commissioners  and 
by  joint  action  seek  to  make  their  work  effective.2 

Foreign  governments  evidently  discouraged  the  American 
initiative. 

Two  weeks  lacking  a  day  after  the  publication  of  this  mes- 
sage, President  Taft  proved  how  thoroughly  he  had  the  cause 
of  pacific  settlement  at  heart  by  consenting  to  address  the  annual 
meeting  of  the  American  Society  for  Judicial  Settlement  of 
International  Disputes  at  its  annual  banquet.  Not  only  did  he 
lend  to  the  ideal  for  which  the  society  stood  the  prestige  of  his 
position,  but  he  thrilled  his  hearers,  and  the  world  next  day 
through  the  newspapers,  by  suggesting,  responsibly,  for  the  first 
time  on  behalf  of  a  great  power,  that  the  arbitral  settlement  of 
every  issue  between  states,  whether  or  not  involving  honor  or 
vital  interest,  might  be  attempted.  In  his  address,  he  made  an 
assertion  which  was  immediately  taken  up  as  indicating  a  new 
American  policy.    His  words  were : 

If  now  we  can  negotiate  and  put  through  a  positive  agreement  with 
some  great  nation  to  abide  the  adjudication  of  an  international  arbitral 
court   in   every   issue   which   can   not  be   settled  by   negotiation,   no   matter 

1  Statutes  at  Large,  36.   Part  I,  885. 

2  Foreign  Relations  of  the    United  States,   19 10,  ix. 


34  SELECTED    ARTICLES 

what  it  involves,  whether  honor,  territory,  or  money,  we  shall  have  made 
a  long  step  forward  by  demonstrating  that  it  is  possible  for  two  nations 
at  least  to  establish  as  between  them  the  same  system  of  due  process  of 
law  that  exists  between  individuals  under  a  government. 

It  seems  to  be  the  view  of  many  that  it  is  inconsistent  for  those  of 
us  who  advocate  any  kind  of  preparation  for  war  or  any  maintenance  of 
armed  force  or  fortification  to  raise  our  voices  for  peaceful  means  of  set- 
tling international  controversies.  But  I  think  this  view  is  quite  unjust 
and  is  not  practical.  We  only  recognize  existing  conditions  and  know  that 
we  have  not  reached  a  point  where  war  is  impossible  or  out  of  the  ques- 
tion, and  do  not  believe  that  the  point  has  been  reached  in  which  all 
nations  are  so  constituted  that  they  may  not  at  times  violate  their  national 
obligations.1 

President  Taft  showed  without  delay  that  he  was  in  earnest. 
The  administration  announced  the  intention  of  negotiating 
treaties  involving  the  solution  of  every  issue  by  peaceful  meth- 
ods with  two  of  the  great  powers.  American  relations  with 
France  had  proceeded  without  a  ripple  of  distrust  or  serious 
difference  for  a  century,  and  there  was  a  mutual  admiration 
between  the  two  republics  that  made  France  a  natural  party  to 
such  an  agreement.  America's  relations  with  the  other  great 
English-speaking  state,  Great  Britain,  had  varied;  but  the  year 
in  which  the  President  spoke  had  seen  the  settlement  of  the  last 
continued  and  serious  difference  between  the  two  countries, 
when  the  Hague  Permanent  Court  of  Arbitration  had  rendered 
its  decision  in  the  North  Atlantic  Fisheries  controversy.  Cordial 
relations,  similarity  in  institutions,  a  common  language,  and  like 
ideals  all  pointed  to  Great  Britain  as  another  participant  in  the 
projected  step  forward.  Great  Britain  and  France  were  ap- 
proached and  were  found  to  be  responsive. 

The  problem  remained  to  find  a  formula  capable  at  the  same 
time  of  realizing  what  the  President  had  in  mind,  and  of  safe- 
guarding the  rights  of  the  contracting  states.  In  addressing  the 
Third  National  Peace  Congress  at  its  opening  session  in  Balti- 
more on  May  3,  191 1,  he  hinted  at  the  difficulties  confronting 
the  administration : 

Your  chairman  has  been  good  enough  to  refer  to  something  that  I 
had  said  with  reference  to  a  hope  for  general  arbitration,  and  the  expres- 
sion of  opinion  that  an  arbitration  treaty  of  the  widest  scope  between  two 
great  nations  would  be  a  very  important  step  in  securing  the  peace  of  the 
world.  I  do  not  claim  any  patent  on  that  statement,  and  I  have  no  doubt 
that  it  is  shared  by  all  who  understand  the  situation  at  all.  I  have  no 
doubt  that  an  important  step — if  such  an  arbitration  treaty  can  be  con- 
cluded— will  have  been  taken,  but  it  will  not  bring  an  end  of  war  at 
once.      It   is   a  step,    and   we   must   not   defeat   our   purposes   by   enlarging 

1  Proceedings  of  International  Conference  under  the  auspices  of  the 
American  Society  for  the  Judicial  Settlement  of  International  Disputes, 
Washington,  D.  C,  December  15-17,  1910,  353. 


A   LEAGUE   OF   NATIONS  35 

the  expectation  of  the  world  as  to  what  is  to  happen  and  then  disappoint- 
ing them.  In  other  words,  we  must  look  forward  with  reasonable  judg- 
ment, and  look  to  such  an  arbitration  treaty  as  one  step,  to  be  followed  by 
other  steps  as  rapidly  as  possible;  but  we  must  realize  that  we  are 
dealing  with  a #  world  that,  is  fallible  and  full  of  weakness — with  some 
wickedness  in  it — and  that  reforms  that  are  worth  having  are  brought 
about  little  by  little  and  not  by  one  blow.  I  do  not  mean  to  say  by  this 
I  am  not  greatly  interested  in  bringing  about  the  arbitration  treaty  or 
treaties  that  are  mentioned,  but  I  do  think  we  are  likely  to  make  more 
progress  if  we  look  forward  with  reasonable  foresight  and  realize  the 
difficulties  that  are  to  be  overcome,  than  if  we  think  we  have  opened  the 
gate  to  eternal  peace  with  one  key  and  within  one  year.1 

The  actual  work  of  negotiation  was  intrusted  to  Chandler  P. 
Anderson,  counselor  of  the  Department  of  State.  His  work 
was  much  facilitated  by  the  sympathy  for  the  project  evinced  by 
Ambassador  James  Bryce  of  Great  Britain  and  Jules  Jusserand 
of  France.  Treaties  were  signed  on  August  3,  191 1,  embodying 
an  idea  which  had  first  been  developed  by  William  Jennings 
Bryan  at  the  London  Conference  of  the  interparliamentary 
Union  on  July  24,  1906.  The  formula  adopted  distinguished  for 
the  first  time  in  a  formal  manner  between  justiciable  disputes, 
to  be  settled  by  legal  methods,  and  nonjusticiable  disputes, 
to  be  resolved  by  a  process  of  extra-legal  and  extra-diplo- 
matic investigation.  For  six  months  following  publication  of 
these  treaties,  they  were  one  of  the  principal  subjects  of 
public  comment.  With  tenacious  insistence  upon  its  alleged  pre- 
rogatives, the  Senate  failed  to  advise  and  consent  to  the  rat- 
ification of  these  treaties,  taking  the  attitude  it  has  previously 
assumed  in  the  case  of  the  Anglo-American  treaty  of  1897  and 
the  1904  series  of  treaties.  After  some  amendments,  based  on 
provincial  prejudices  which  legal  experts  from  that  time  for- 
ward have  pronounced  to  be  invalid,  the  Senate  gave  the 
requisite  consent.2     The  President  did  not  proceed  to  the  ratifi- 

1  Proceedings  of  Third  National  Peace  Conference,  Baltimore,  May  3, 
1911,   14-iS. 

2  President  Taft  strongly  opposed  the  Senate's  attitude  at  the  time,  and 
as  an  ex-President  has  many  times  rebutted  its  arguments.  In  his  book, 
The  United  States  and  Peace,  published  in  19 14,  he  wrote  (pages  112, 
115-116): 

"As  in  the  consideration  of  the  Hay  treaties,  so  here  it  was  argued  that 
the  President  and  the  Senate  would  unlawfully  delegate  their  treaty-making 
power  if  they  agreed  that  a  tribunal  should  finally  adjudge  that  a  specific 
difference,  subsequently  arising,  was  in  the  class  of  differences  covered  by 
the  treaty.  It  is  very  difficult  to  argue  this  question  because  the  answer 
to  it  is  so  plain  and  obvious.   .    .    . 

"Nevertheless,  the  Senate  struck  out  the  provisions  for  a  decision  by 
the  Joint  High  Commission.  I  considered  this  proposition  the  most  im- 
portant feature  of  the  treaty,  and  I  did  so  because  I  felt  that  we  had  reached 
a  time  in  the  making  of  promissory  treaties  of  arbitration  when  they  should 
mean  something.  The  Senate  halted  just  at  the  point  where  a  possible  and 
real  obligation  might  be  created.  I  do  not  wish  to  minimize  the  importance 
of  general  expressions  of  good  will  and  general  declarations  of  willingness 
to  settle  everything  without  war,  but  the  long  list  of  treaties  that  mean 
but  little  can  now  hardly  be  made  longer,  for  they  include  substantially  all 
the  countries  of  the  world.  The  next  step  is  to  include  something  that 
really  binds  somebody  in  a  treaty  for  future  arbitration." 


36  SELECTED    ARTICLES 

cation  of  the  treaties,  because  the  extraneous  amendments 
destroyed  their  full  usefulness  as  world-models.  As  negotiated 
the  treaties  provided: 

Art.  I.  All  differences  hereafter  arising  between  the  High  Contract- 
ing Parties,  which  has  not  been  possible  to  adjust  by  diplomacy,  relating 
to  international  matters  in  which  the  High  Contracting  Parties  are  con- 
cerned by  virtue  of  a  claim  of  right  made  by  one  against  the  other  under 
treaty  or  otherwise,  and  which  are  justiciable  in  their  nature  by  reason  of 
being  susceptible  of  decision  by  the  application  of  the  principles  of  law  and 
equity,  shall  be  submitted  to  the  Permanent  Court  of  Arbitration  estab- 
lished at  The  Hague  by  the  Convention  of  October  18,  1007,  or  to  some 
other  arbitral  tribunal,  as  shall  be  decided  in  each  case  by  special  agree- 
ment.  .... 

Art.  II.  The  High  Contracting  Parties  further  agree  to  institute  as 
occasion  arises,  and  as  hereinafter  provided,  a  Joint  High  Commission  of 
Inquiry  to  which,  upon  the  request  of  either  Party,  shall  be  referred  for 
impartial  and  conscientious  investigation  any  controversy  between  the 
Parties  within  the  scope  of  Art.  I,  before  such  controversy  has  been  sub- 
mitted to  arbitration,  and  also  by  any  other  controversy  hereafter  arising 
between  them  even  if  they  are  not  agreed  that  it  falls  within  the  scope  of 
Art.  I;  provided,  however,  that  such  reference  may  be  postponed  until  the 
expiration  of  one  year  after  the  date  of  the  formal  request  therefor,  in 
order  to  afford  an  opportunity  for  diplomatic  discussion  and  adjustment  of 
the  questions  in  controversy,  if  either  Party  desires  such  postponement.  .  .  . 

Art.  III.  .  .  .  It  is  further  agreed,  however,  that  in  cases  in  which 
the  Parties  disagree  as  to  whether  or  not  a  difference  is  subject  to  arbitra- 
tion under  Art.  I  of  this  Treaty,  that  question  shall  be  submitted  to  the 
Joint  High  Commission  of  Inquiry;  and  if  all  or  all  but  one  of  the  mem- 
bers of  the  Commission  agree  and  report  that  such  difference  is  within  the 
scope  of  Art.  I,  it  shall  be  referred  to  arbitration  in  accordance  with  the 
provisions  of  this  Treaty.1 

The  incident  in  American  national  history,  however,  is  not 
to  be  counted  a  failure.  It  broadened  interest  in  the  cause  of 
world  organization,  and  it  convinced  many  in  and  out  of  public 
life  that  sound  advances  toward  a  practical  plan  for  insuring 
peace  were  possible.  Moreover,  it  had  the  effect  of  bringing  the 
once  remote  problems  of  international  peace  into  the  sphere  of 
practical  politics. 

President  Taft,  however,  was  looking  beyond  the  treaties  he 
attempted  to  establish  as  a  world  model.  He  made  this  clear 
in  his  public  speeches.  One  of  the  notable  occasions  on  which 
he  expressed  his  views  was  the  Citizens'  Peace  Banquet  at  the 
Waldorf  Astoria  in  New  York  on  December  30,  191 1.  At  that 
time,  he  definitely  foreshadowed  the  idea  of  a  league  of  nations, 
and  particularly  emphasized  the  fact  that  his  own  treaties  and 
even  a  full-fledged  international  arbitral  court  were  to  be  con- 
sidered only  as  steps  toward  a  larger  goal. 

The  idea  continued  to  be  dominant  in  the  President's  mind 

1  Treaties,  Conventions,  etc.,  1776-1909,  Supplement,  1913,  380-382. 


A   LEAGUE   OF   NATIONS  37 

during  the  remainder  of  his  administration.  At  a  luncheon  given 
in  New  York  on  January  4,  1913,  he  again  stated  his  belief  in 
by  the  International  Peace  Forum  to  him  at  the  Waldorf  Astoria 
a  way  which  completely  foreshadowed  the  program  of  the 
League  to  Enforce  Peace,  of  which  he  has  been  president  since 
its  organization  on  June  17,  1915.  The  following  statement  by 
the  President  was  more  than  a  declaration  of  personal  views,  it 
was  an  assertion  of  state  policy: 

My  own  idea  was  that  if  we  could  make  those  treaties,  they  would  form 
a  basis  for  a  treaty  with  every  other  nation  by  the  United  States,  and 
then  between  other  nations  than  the  United  States,  and  finally,  by  inter 
locking  and  intertwining  all  the  treaties,  we  might  easily  then  come  to  the 
settlement  of  all  international  questions  by  a  court  of  arbitration,  a  per- 
manent, well-established  court  of  arbitration,  whose  powers  are  to  be 
enforced  by  the  agreement  of  all  nations,  and  into  which  any  nation  may 
come  as  a  complainant  and  bring  any  other  nation  as  a  defendant,  and 
compel  that  defendant  nation  to  answer  to  the  complaint  under  the  rules 
of  law  established  for  international  purposes,  and  under  the  rules  of  law 
which  would  necessarily,  with  such  a  court,  grow  into  a  code  that  would 
embrace  all  the  higher  moral  rules  of  Christian  civilization.1 


President  Wilson  succeeded  President  Taft  on  March  4,  1913. 
The  effort  of  his  administration  to  make  progress  was  destined 
to  be  successful.  The  previous  administration  had  failed  in  an 
effort  to  combine  the  principles  of  arbitration  and  the  commis- 
sion of  inquiry  in  a  single  system  of  pacific  settlement.  The 
new  administration  decided  to  leave  the  25  existent  treaties  of 
arbitration  then  in  force,  undisturbed,  and  to  negotiate  independ- 
ent treaties  establishing  permanent  commissions  of  investigation 
for  all  questions  not  properly  falling  under  the  arbitration 
treaties.  '  These  "treaties  for  the  advancement  of  peace,"  as 
they  are  officially  called,  are  at  present  in  force  with  20  countries, 
while  10  more  have  been  signed  and  five  others  accept  the  prin- 
ciple. Their  effect  has  been  to  add  to  the  practical  machinery 
of  pacific  settlement  a  method  for  resolving  all  non-justiciable 
disputes.  The  treaties  already  in  force  contain  the  following 
essential  provisions : 

Art.  I.  The  high  contracting  parties  agree  that  all  disputes 
between  them,  of  every  nature  whatsoever,  which  diplomacy  shall 
fail  to  adjust  shall  be  submitted  for  investigation  and  report  to  an 
International  Commission,  to  be  constituted  in  the  manner  pre- 
scribed in  the  next  succeeding  Article;  and  they  agree  not  to 

1  The  Peace  Forum,  February,  1913.  "• 


38  SELECTED    ARTICLES 

declare  war  or  begin  hostilities  during  such  investigation  and  re- 
port. 

Art.  II.  The  International  Commission  shall  be  composed  of 
five  members,  to  be  appointed  as  follows:  One  member  shall  be 
chosen  from  each  country,  by  the  Government  thereof ;  one  mem- 
ber shall  be  chosen  by  each  Government  from  some  third  coun- 
try; the  fifth  member  shall  be  chosen  by  common  agreement  be- 
tween the  two  Governments.    .  .  . 

Art.  III.  In  case  the  high  contracting  parties  shall  have 
failed  to  adjust  a  dispute  by  diplomatic  methods,  they  shall  at 
once  refer  it  to  the  International  Commission  for  investigation 
upon  its  own  initiative,  and  in  such  case  it  shall  notify  both  Gov- 
ernments and  request  their  co-operation  in  the  investigation. 

The  report  of  the  International  Commission  shall  be  completed 
within  one  year  after  the  date  on  which  it  shall  declare  its 
investigation  to  have  begun,  unless  the  high  contracting  parties 
shall  extend  the  time  by  mutual  agreement.    .  .  . 

The  high  contracting  parties  reserve  the  right  to  act  inde- 
pendently on  the  subject-matter  of  the  dispute  after  the  report 
of  the  Commission  shall  have  been  submitted. 


ORGANIZED  EFFORT  TO  PROMOTE 
A  LEAGUE  OF  NATIONS 

AMERICAN  CONSTRUCTIVE  PROPOSALS  FOR 
INTERNATIONAL    JUSTICE1 

The  first  society,  organized  in  the  United  States  after  the 
adjournment  of  the  second  Hague  Conference  to  apply  itself 
to  the  discussion  and  defense  of  plans  for  a  world  court,  is 
the  American  Society  for  Judicial  Settlement  of  International 
Disputes,  founded  in  1910  by  a  company  of  lawyers,  publicists 
and  other  eminent  citizens. 

Next  came  the  American  Institute  of  International  Law, 
founded  at  Washington  in  1912,  with  the  object  of  propagating 
in  America  the  principles  of  justice  and  law  which  ought  to 
prevail  in  the  relations  between  States.  Its  membership  is 
composed  of  not  more  than  five  publicists  from  each  Ameri- 
can country,  making  in  all  a  body  of  possibly  one  hundred  and 
five  members.  At  the  second  meeting  of  this  Institute  which 
took  place  in  Havana,  January  22  and  27,  191 7,  ten  recommen- 
dations on  international  organization  were  unanimously  approved. 
These  recommendations  include  every  item  of  the  program  of 
the  World's  Court  League,  and  are  all  in  entire  harmony  with 
that  program. 

The  third  society  with  similar  purposes  is  the  World's  Court 
League,  organized  at  a  conference  held  in  Cleveland,  Ohio,  May 
13th,  14th  and  15th,  1915.  It  was  incorporated  on  December  28th 
of  the  same  year.  The  league  was  formed  in  the  hope  of  con- 
justice.  It  began  the  publication  of  a  magazine  called  The  World 
centrating  popular  attention  in  the  United  States  upon  the  neces- 
sity of  establishing  and  maintaining  an  international  court  of  \ 
Court,  and  devoted  itself  to  the  work  of  educating  public  opinion. 

June  17th,  one  month  after  the  formation  of  the  World's 
Court  League,  the  League  to  Enforce  Peace  was  born  at  Inde- 
pendence Hall  in  Philadelphia.  A  comprehensive  program  of 
world  reorganization  after  this  war  was  adopted,  including    a 

1  By  Charles  H.  Levermore,  Secretary  of  the  New  York  Peace  Society. 
In  World  Court.    3:72-9.    March,  19 17. 


40  SELECTED    ARTICLES 

court,  council  and  congress  of  nations  belonging  to  the  league, 
and  an  agreement  to  compel  investigation  before  fighting. 

In  the  fall  of  1916,  the  World's  Court  League  was  reor- 
ganized with  a  view  to  enlarging  and  perfecting  its  work.  In 
November  the  Board  of  Governors  adopted  a  revised  and  ex- 
panded platform  which  is  as  follows: 

We  believe  it  to  be  desirable  that  a  League  among  Nations  should  be 
organized  for  the  following  purposes: 

1.  A  World  Court,  in  general  similar  to  the  Court  of  Arbitral  Jus- 
tice already  agreed  upon  at  the  Second  Hague  Conference,  should  be,  as 
soon  as  possible,  established  as  an  International  Court  of  Justice,  repre- 
senting the  nations  of  the  world  and,  subject  to  the  limitations  of  treaties, 
empowered  to  assume  jurisdiction  over  international  questions  in  dispute 
that  are  justiciable  in  character  and  that  are  not  settled  by  negotiation. 

2.  All  other  international  controversies  not  settled  by  negotiation 
should  be  referred  to  the  Permanent  Court  of  Arbitration  at  The  Hague, 
or  submitted  to  an  International  Council  of  Conciliation,  or  Commissions 
of  Inquiry,   for  hearing,  consideration  and   recommendation. 

3.  Soon  after  peace  is  declared,  there  should  be  held  either  "a  con- 
ference of  all  great  Governments,"  as  described  in  the  United  States  Naval 
Appropriation  Act  of  19 16,  or  a  similar  assembly,  formally  designated  at 
the  Third  Hague  Conference,  and  the  sessions  of  such  international  con- 
ferences should  become  permanently  periodic,  at  shorter  intervals  than 
formerly. 

Such  conference  or  conferences  should  (a)  formulate  and  adopt  plans 
for  the  establishment  of  a  World  Court  and  an  International  Council  of 
Conciliation,  and  (b)  from  time  to  time  formulate  and  codify  rules  of  in- 
ternational law  to  govern  in  the  decisions  of  the  World  Court  in  all  cases, 
except  those  involving  any  constituent  State  which  has  within  the  fixed 
period  signified  its  dissent. 

4.  In  connection  with  the  establishment  of  automatically  periodic  ses- 
sions of  an  International  Conference,  the  constituent  Governments  should 
establish  a  permanent  Continuation  Committee  of  the  conference,  with 
such  administrative  powers  as  may  be  delegated  to  it  by  the  conference. 

At  the  same  time  the  magazine,  bearing  the  new  title  of  "The 
World  Court,  a  Magazine  of  International  Progress,"  was  con- 
siderably enlarged  under  a  new  board  of  editors;  and  the  or- 
ganization of  an  International  Council  and  a  National  Advisory 
Board  began. 

The  new  platform  of  The  World's  Court  League  is  prac- 
tically identical  with  the  platform  which  has  been  favored  by 
the  American  Peace  Society  since  the  days  of  President  William 
Ladd  in  1840.  All  the  local  State  Peace  Societies  are  affiliated 
with  the  American  Peace  Society  so  that  the  whole  force  of  that 
organization  is  committed  to  this  platform.  The  American 
Peace  Society  receives  a  considerable  portion  of  its  support  from 
the  Carnegie  Endowment,  which  is  the  largest  endowment  for 
international  peace  in  the  world. 


A   LEAGUE   OF   NATIONS  41 

The  World's  Court  League  has  combined  in  its  platform  the 
essential  doctrines  of  all  these  other  peace  societies  and  organ- 
izations for  the  improvement  of  international  relations.  It  has 
omitted  all  contentious  matter,  unless  the  initial  proposal,  that 
the  league  among  nations  be  formed,  be  still  regarded  as  open 
to  question.  It  offers  what  may  be  called  "the  irreducible  min- 
imum" of  all  plans  for  reorganizing  the  world  so  as  to  ensure 
peace  with  justice. 


KEEPING    THE    WORLD    SAFE:    THE    PRE- 
AMBLE   AND    PROPOSALS    OF    THE 
LEAGUE     TO     ENFORCE     PEACE1 

Adopted   at   the    Organization   Meeting   in   Independence   Hall, 
Philadelphia,  June   17,   1915 

Throughout  five  thousand  years  of  recorded  history,  peace, 
here  and  there  established,  has  been  kept,  and  its  area  has  been 
widened,  in  one  way  only.  Individuals  have  combined  their 
efforts  to  suppress  violence  in  the  local  community.  Com- 
munities have  cooperated  to  maintain  the  authoritative  state  and 
to  preserve  peace  within  its  borders.  States  have  formed  leagues 
or  confederations  or  have  otherwise  cooperated  to  establish 
peace  among  themselves.  Always  peace  has  been  made  and 
kept,  when  made  and  kept  at  all,  by  the  superior  power  of 
superior  numbers  acting  in  unity  for  the  common  good. 

Mindful  of  this  teaching  of  experience,  we  believe  and 
solemnly  urge  that  the  time  has  come  to  devise  and  to  create  a 
working  union  of  sovereign  nations  to  establish  peace  among 
themselves  and  to  guarantee  it  by  all  known  and  available 
sanctions  at  their  command,  to  the  end  that  civilization  may  be 
conserved,  and  the  progress  of  mankind  in  comfort,  enlighten- 
ment and  happiness  may  continue. 

We  believe  it  to  be  desirable  for  the  United  States  to  join 
a  league  of  nations  binding  the  signatories  to  the  following: 

1  From  "A  Reference  Book  for  Speakers."  p.  31-4.  Published  by 
the  League  to  Enforce  Peace,  William  H.  Taft,  President. 


42  SELECTED    ARTICLES 

First:  All  justiciable  questions  arising  between  the  signatory 
powers,  not  settled  by  negotiation,  shall,  subject  to  the 
limitations  of  treaties,  be  submitted  to  a  judicial  tribunal 
for  hearing  and  judgment,  both  upon  the  merits  and  upon 
any  issue  as  to  its  jurisdiction  of  the  question. 

Second:  All  other  questions  arising  between  the  signatories 
and  not  settled  by  negotiation,  shall  be  submitted  to  a  coun- 
cil of  conciliation  for  hearing,  consideration  and  recom- 
mendation. 

Third:  The  signatory  powers  shall  jointly  use  forthwith  both 
their  economic  and  military  forces  against  any  one  of  their 
number  that  goes  to  war,  or  commits  acts  of  hostility, 
against  another  of  the  signatories  before  any  question 
arising  shall  be  submitted  as  provided  in  the  foregoing. 

The  following  interpretation  of  Article  3  has  been  authorised  by  the 
Executive  Committee: 

"The  signatory  powers  shall  jointly  employ  diplomatic  and  economic 
pressure  against  any  one  of  their  number  that  threatens  war  against  a 
fellow  signatory  without  having  first  submitted  its  dispute  for  international 
inquiry,  conciliation,  arbitration  or  judicial  hearing,  and  awaited  a  con- 
clusion, or  without  having  offered  so  to  submit  it.  They  shall  follow  this 
forthwith  by  the  joint  use  of  their  military  forces  against  that  nation  if 
it  actually  goes  to  war,  or  commits  acts  of  hostility,  against  another  of 
the  signatories  before  any  question  arising  shall  be  dealt  with  as  provided 
in  the  foregoing." 

Fourth :  Conferences  between  the  signatory  powers  shall  be 
held  from  time  to  time  to  formulate  and  codify  rules  of 
international  law,  which,  unless  some  signatory  shall  signify 
its  dissent  within  a  stated  period,  shall  thereafter  govern  in 
the  decisions  of  the  judicial  tribunal  mentioned  in  Article 
One. 


A   LEAGUE   OF   NATIONS  43 


VICTORY   PROGRAM1 

The  war  now  happily  brought  to  a  close  has  been  above  all  a 
war  to  end  war,  but  in  order  to  ensure  the  fruits  of  victory  and 
to  prevent  the  recurrence  of  such  a  catastrophe  there  should  be 
formed  a  League  of  Free  Nations,  as  universal  as  possible,  based 
upon  treaty  and  pledged  that  the  security  of  each  state  shall  rest 
upon  the  strength  of  the  whole.  The  initiating  nucleus  of  the 
membership  of  the  League  should  be  the  nations  associated  as 
belligerents  in  winning  the  war. 

The  League  should  aim  at  promoting  the  liberty,  progress, 
and  fair  economic  opportunity  of  all  nations,  and  the  orderly 
development  of  the  world. 

It  should  ensure  peace  by  eliminating  causes  of  dissension,  by 
deciding  controversies  by  peaceable  means,  and  by  uniting  the 
potential  force  of  all  the  members  as  a  standing  menace  against 
any  nation  that  seeks  to  upset  the  peace  of  the  world. 

The  advantages  of  membership  in  the  League,  both  eco- 
nomically and  from  the  point  of  view  of  security,  should  be  so 
clear  that  all  nations  will  desire  to  be  members  of  it. 

For  this  purpose  it  is  necessary  to  create — 

1.  For  the  decision  of  justiciable  questions,  an  impartial 
tribunal  whose  jurisdiction  shall  not  depend  upon  the  assent  of 
the  parties  to  the  controversy;  provision  to  be  made  for  enforc- 
ing its  decisions. 

2.  For  questions  that  are  not  justiciable  in  their  character, 
a  Council  of  Conciliation,  as  mediator,  which  shall  hear,  con- 
sider, and  make  recommendations;  and  failing  acquiescence  by 
the  parties  concerned,  the  League  shall  determine  what  action, 
if  any,  shall  be  taken. 

3.  An  administrative  organisation  for  the  conduct  of  affairs 
of  common  interest,  the  protection  and  care  of  backward  regions 
and  internationalized  places,  and  such  matters  as  have  been 
jointly  administered  before  and  during  the  war.  We  hold  that 
this  object  must  be  attained  by  methods  and  through  machinery 
that  will  ensure  both  stability  and  progress;  preventing,  on  the 

1  Adopted  at  a  meeting  of  the  Executive  Committee,  held  in  New 
York,  November  23,  19 18,  as  the  official  platform  of  the  League  to  Enforce 
Peace,  superseding  the  proposals  adopted  at  the  organization  of  the  League 
in  Philadelphia,  June  17,  1915.     Reprinted  from  a  recent  circular. 


44  SELECTED    ARTICLES 

one  hand,  any  crystallization  of  the  status  quo  that  will  defeat 
the  forces  of  healthy  growth  and  changes,  and  providing,  on  the 
other  hand,  a  way  by  which  progress  can  be  secured  and  neces- 
sary change  effected  without  recourse  to  war. 

4.  A  representative  Congress  to  formulate  and  codify  rules 
of  international  law,  to  inspect  the  work  of  the  administrative 
bodies  and  to  consider  any  matter  affecting  the  tranquility  of  the 
world  or  the  progress  or  betterment  of  human  relations.  Its 
deliberations  should  be  public. 

5.  An  Executive  Body,  able  to  speak  with  authority  in  the 
name  of  the  nations  represented,  and  to  act  in  case  the  peace  of 
the  world  is  endangered. 

The  representation  of  the  different  nations  in  the  organs  of 
the  League  should  be  in  proportion  to  the  responsibilities  and 
obligations  they  assume.  The  rules  of  international  law  should 
not  be  defeated  for  lack  of  unanimity. 

A  resort  to  force  by  any  nation  should  be  prevented  by  a  sol- 
emn agreement  that  any  aggression  will  be  met  immediately  by 
such  an  overwhelming  economic  and  military  force  that  it  will 
not  be  attempted. 

No  member  of  the  League  should  make  any  other  offensive 
or  defensive  treaty  or  alliance,  and  all  treaties  of  whatever  nature 
made  by  any  member  of  the  League  should  at  once  be  made 
public. 

Such  a  League  must  be  formed  at  the  time  of  the  definitive 
peace,  or  the  opportunity  may  be  lost  forever. 

This  VICTORY  PROGRAM  is  offered  for  the  consideration 
and  endorsement  of  all  organizations  and  individuals  interested 
in  the  problems  of  international  reconstruction. 


A   LEAGUE   OF   NATIONS  45 


LEAGUE  OF  FREE  NATIONS  ASSOCIATION1 

The  object  of  this  society  is  to  promote  a  more  general  reali- 
zation and  support  by  the  public  of  the  conditions  indispensable 
to  the  success,  at  the  Peace  Conference  and  thereafter,  of  Ameri- 
can aims  and  policy  as  outlined  by  President  Wilson. 

The  particular  aims,  such  as  the  liberation  of  Belgium,  Serbia, 
Poland  and  Bohemia,  and  their  future  protection  from  aggres- 
sion, and  America's  own  future  security  on  land  and  sea,  are  de- 
pendent upon  the  realization  of  the  more  general  aim  of  a 
sounder  future  international  order,  the  corner-stone  of  which 
must  be  a  League  of  Nations. 

The  purposes  of  such  a  league  are  to  achieve  for  all  peoples, 
great  and  small : 

(i)  Security:  the  due  protection  of  national  existence. 

(2)  Equality  of  economic  opportunity. 
*  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * 

The  fundamental  principle  underlying  the  League  of  Nations 
is  that  the  security  and  rights  of  each  member  shall  rest  upon 
the  strength  of  the  whole  league,  pledged  to  uphold  by  their 
combined  power  international  arrangements  ensuring  fair  treat- 
ment for  all. 

The  first  concern  of  a  League  of  Nations  is  to  find  out  what 
those  arrangements  should  be,  what  rules  of  international  life 
will  ensure  justice  to  all,  how  far  the  old  international  law  or 
practice  must  be  modified  to  secure  that  end.  It  is  to  the  in- 
terest of  the  entire  world  that  every  nation  should  attain  its 
maximum  economic  development,  provided  it  does  not  prevent 
a  similar  development  of  other  nations.  The  realization  of  this 
aim  depends  upon  gradually  increasing  freedom  of  mutual  ex- 
change with  its  resulting  economic  interdependence.  It  is  cer- 
tain, for  instance,  that  if  anything  approaching  equality  of  eco- 

1  The  League  of  Free  Nations  Association  has  just  been  launched  un- 
der the  presidency  of  Norman  Hapgood,  with  Richard  S.  Childs  as  chair- 
man of  the  executive  committee;  Prof.  Stephen  P.  Duggan.  secretary,  and 
Prof.  Wendell  Bush,  treasurer.  Lincoln  Colcord  is  publicity  director  in 
a  campaign  to  arouse  American  interest  in  the  social  issues  at  stake  in 
the  settlement,  in  the  creation  of  a  League  of  Nations  and  in  its  demo- 
cratic constitution.  This  declaration  of  principles  is  reprinted  from  the 
Survey  of  November  30.     p.  250. 


46  SELECTED    ARTICLES 

nomic  opportunity  as  between  great  and  small,  powerful  and 
weak,  is  to  be  obtained,  the  following  must  be  guaranteed  for  all 
on  equal  terms: 

(a)  No  state  shall  accord  to  one  neighbor  privileges  not  ac- 
corded to  others — this  principle  to  apply  to  the  purchase  of  raw 
material  as  well  as  to  access  to  markets.  Equality  of  economic 
opportunity  does  not  mean  the  abolition  of  all  tariffs  or  the 
abolition  of  the  right  of  self-governing  states  to  determine 
whether  free  trade  or  protection  is  to  their  best  interests. 

(b)  States  exercising  authority  in  non-self-governing  terri- 
tories shall  not  exercise  that  power  as  a  means  of  securing  a 
privileged  economic  position  for  their  own  nationals;  economic 
opportunity  in  such  territories  shall  be  open  to  all  peoples  on 
equal  terms,  the  peoples  of  nations  possessing  no  such  territories 
being  in  the  same  position  economically  as  those  that  possess 
great  subject  empires.  Investments  and  concessions  in  backward 
countries  should  be  placed  under  international  control. 

(c)  Goods  and  persons  of  the  citizens  of  all  states  should  be 
transported  on  equal  terms  on  international  rivers,  canals,  straits, 
or  railroads. 

(d)  Landlocked  states  must  be  guaranteed  access  to  the  sea 

on  equal  terms  both  by  equality  of  treatment  on  communications 

running  through  other  states,  and  by  the  use  of  seaports. 
*********** 

The  administrative  machinery  of  a  workable  internationalism 
already  exists  in  rudimentary  form.  The  international  bodies 
that  have  already  been  established  by  the  Allied  belligerents — 
who  now  number  over  a  score — to  deal  with  their  combined  mil- 
itary resources,  shipping  and  transport,  food,  raw  materials,  and 
finance,  have  been  accorded  immense  powers.  Many  of  these 
activities — particularly  those  relating  to  the  international  control 
of  raw  material  shipping — will  have  to  be  continued  during  the 
very  considerable  period  of  demobilization  and  reconstruction 
which  will  follow  the  war.  Problems  of  demobilization  and  civil 
reemployment  particularly  will  demand  the  efficient  representa- 
tion of  labor  and  liberal  elements  of  the  various  states.  With 
international  commissions,  and  exercising  the  same  control  over 
the  economic  resources  of  the  world,  an  international  govern- 
ment with  powerful  sanction  will  in  fact  exist. 

The   international   machinery  will   need   democratization    as 


A   LEAGUE   OF   NATIONS  47 

well  as  progressive  differentiation  of  function.  If  the  League  of 
Nations  is  not  to  develop  into  an  immense  bureaucratic  union  of 
governments  instead  of  a  democratic  union  of  peoples,  the  ele- 
ments of  (a)  complete  publicity  and  (b)  effective  popular  repre- 
sentation must  be  insisted  upon.  The  first  of  these  is  implicit  in 
the  principle,  so  emphasized  by  President  Wilson,  that  in  the 
future  there  must  be  an  end  to  secret  diplomacy.  The  second 
can  only  be  met  by  some  representation  of  the  peoples  in  a  body 
with  legislative  powers  over  international  affairs — which  must 
include  minority  elements — as  distinct  from  the  governments  of 
the  constituent  states  of  the  league.  It  is  the  principle  which  has 
found  expression  in  the  American  Union  as  contrasted  with  the 
federated  states  of  the  German  empire.  If  the  government  of 
the  United  States  consisted  merely  of  the  representatives  of 
forty-eight  states,  the  Union  could  never  have  been  maintained 
on  a  democratic  basis.  Happily  it  consists  also  of  the  repre- 
sentatives of  a  hundred  million  people.  The  new  international 
government  must  make  the  same  provision  and  deliberately  aim 
to  see  that  all  the  great  parties  and  groups  in  the  various  states 
obtain  representation. 

The  assurance  of  the  political,  civil,  religious,  and  cultural 
rights  of  minorities  within  states  is  an  even  more  difficult  prob- 
lem. But  genuinely  democratic  parliamentary  institutions  in  the 
league,  ensuring  some  expression  of  minority  opinion  as  well  as 
complete  publicity,  will  be  a  strong  deterrent  if  not  a  complete 
assurance  against  tyrannical  treatment  of  minorities  within  its 
constituent  states. 

Indispensable  to  the  success  of  American  policy  are  at  least 
the  following: 

A  universal  association  of  nations  based  upon  the  principle 
that  the  security  of  each  shall  rest  upon  the  strength  of  the 
whole,  pledged  to  uphold  international  arrangements  giving 
equality  of  political  right  and  economic  opportunity,  the  associa- 
tion to  be  based  upon  a  constitution  democratic  in  character, 
possessing  a  central  council  or  parliament  as  truly  representative 
as  possible  of  all  the  political  parties  in  the  constituent  nations, 
open  to  any  nation,  and  only  such  nation,  whose  government  is 
responsible  to  the  people.  The  formation  of  such  an  association 
should  be  an  integral  part  of  the  settlement  itself  and  its  terri- 
torial problems,  and  not  distinct  therefrom.     It  should  prohibit 


48  SELECTED    ARTICLES 

the  formation  of  minor  leagues  or  special  covenants,  or  special 
economic  combinations,  boycotts,  or  exclusions.  Differences  be- 
tween members  should  be  submitted  to  its  judicial  bodies.  Its 
administrative  machinery  should  be  built  up  from  the  inter-allied 
bodies  differentiated  in  function  and  democratized  in  constitu- 
tion. The  effective  sanction  of  the  association  should  not  be 
alone  the  combined  military  power  of  the  whole  used  as  an  in- 
strument of  repression,  but  such  use  of  the  world-wide  control 
of  economic  resources  as  would  make  it  more  advantageous  for 
a  state  to  become  and  remain  a  member  of  the  association  and 
to  cooperate  with  it,  than  to  challenge  it. 

All  the  principles  above  outlined  are  merely  an  extension. of 
the  principles  that  have  been  woven  into  the  fabric  of  our  own 
national  life. 


THE    LEAGUE    OF    NATIONS    SOCIETY1 

The  League  of  Nations  Society  (i  Central  Buildings,  West- 
minster), was  founded  March  10,  1015.  The  chairman  is  the 
Rt.  Hon.  W.  H.  Dickinson,  M.  P. 

Program 

1.  That  a  treaty  shall  be  made  as  soon  as  possible  whereby 
as  many  states  as  are  willing  shall  form  a  league  binding  them- 
selves to  use  peaceful  methods  for  dealing  with  all  disputes 
arising  among  them. 

2.  That  such  methods  shall  be  as  follows: 

(a)  All  disputes  arising  out  of  questions  of  international 

law  or  the  interpretation  of  treaties  shall  be  re- 
ferred to  The  Hague  Court  of  Arbitration,  or  some 
other  judicial  tribunal,  whose  decisions  shall  be 
final  and  shall  be  carried  into  effect  by  the  parties 
concerned. 

(b)  All  other  disputes  shall  be  referred  to  and  inves- 
tigated and  reported  upon  by  a  Council  of  Inquiry 
and  Conciliation,  the  Council  to  be  representative 
of  the  states  which  form  the  league. 

1  From  "Approaches  to  the  Great  Settlement,"  by  Emily  Greene  Balch. 
p.  251.     Huebsch.     1918. 


A   LEAGUE   OF   NATIONS  49 

3.  That  the  states  which  are  members  of  the  league  shall 
unite  in  any  action  necessary  for  insuring  that  every  member 
shall  abide  by  the  terms  of  the  treaty. 

4.  That  the  states  which  are  members  of  the  league  shall 
make  provision  for  mutual  defense,  diplomatic,  economic,  or 
military,  in  the  event  of  any  of  them  being  attacked  by  a  state, 
not  a  member  of  the  league,  which  refuses  to  submit  the  case 
to  an  appropriate  tribunal  or  council. 

5.  That  any  civilized  state  desiring  to  join  the  league  shall 
be  admitted  to  membership. 


BRITISH    LEAGUE    OF    FREE    NATIONS 
ASSOCIATION  1 

This  new  Association  was  inaugurated  in  September,  1918, 
at  Northampton,  with  Captain  W.  Henry  Williams,  22  Bucking- 
ham Gate,  London,  S.  W.  I.,  as  general  secretary.  The  organ- 
ization was  composed  largely  of  those  who  favored  immediate 
action  and  were  impatient  with  the  more  conservative  methods 
of  the  League  of  Nations  Society.  The  main  point  of  difference 
in  their  programs  was  that  the  new  Society  wanted  to  begin 
immediately .  the  formation  of  a  league  of  nations.  A  com- 
promise was  agreed  upon  at  a  joint  meeting  of  the  two  organ- 
izations in  October,  and  since  then  both  societies  have  merged 
into  the  new  League  of  Nations  Union.  The  principles  of  the 
new  Union,  stated  in  the  following  article,  are  virtually  those  of 
the  League  of  Free  Nations  Association. 


THE  LEAGUE  OF  NATIONS  UNION  1 

A  British  organization  to  promote  the  formation  of  a  World 
League  of  Free  Peoples  for  the  securing  of  international  justice, 
mutual  defense,  and  permanent  peace.  (To  be  associated  with 
kindred  societies  and  organizations  in  the  United  Kingdom 
and  abroad.) 


1  From    a   mimeographed    copy    of   the    rules    and    objects    of   the    new 
union  submitted  to  the  members  of  the  two  uniting  societies. 


50  SELECTED    ARTICLES 

Objects  of  the  Association 

The  establishment  as  soon  as  possible,  of  a  League  of  Free 
Peoples  desirous  of  ending  war  forever  and  willing  to  agree: 
i.    To   submit   all    disputes    arising   between   themselves   to 
methods  of  peaceful  settlement. 

2.  To  suppress  jointly,  by  the  use  of  all  means  at  their  dis- 
posal, any  attempt  by  any  State  to  disturb  the  peace  of 
the  world  by  acts  of  war. 

3.  To  create  a  Supreme  Court,  and  to  respect  and  enforce 
its  decisions. 

4.  To  establish  a  permanent  Council  to  supervise  and  control 
armaments,  to  act  as  mediator  in  matters  of  difference 
not  suitable  for  submission  to  the  Supreme  Court,  to 
concert  measures  for  joint  action  in  matters  of  common 
concern. 

5.  To  admit  to  the  League  all  peoples  able  and  willing  to 
give  effective  guarantees  of  their  loyal  intentions  to  ob- 
serve its  covenants,  and  thus  bring  about  such  a  world 
organization  as  will  guarantee  the  freedom  of  nations; 
act  as  trustee  and  guardian  of  uncivilized  races  and  un- 
developed territories;  maintain  international  order,  and 
thus  finally  liberate  mankind  from  the  curse  of  war. 


A   LEAGUE   OF   NATIONS  51 


FRENCH  LEAGUE  OF  NATIONS  SOCIETY  1 

A  number  of  eminent  Frenchmen  are  behind  a  movement  to 
form  in  France  a  propaganda  organization  similar  in  general 
purpose  and  method  to  the  League  to  Enforce  Peace.  A  pro- 
visional organization  committee,  composed  of  Ferdinand  Buisson, 
Albert  Thomas  and  J.  Prudhommeaux,  has  written  to  the  League 
outlining  the  plan  of  the  new  association  and  asking  support.  .  .  . 
The  Honorary  President  of  the  French  association  is  Leon 
Bourgeois,  chairman  of  the  commission  appointed  by  the  French 
government  to  draw  up  an  official  plan  for  a  League  of  Nations. 
This  fact  suggests  that  the  plan  of  the  organization  may  be 
closely  analogous  to  the  French  government  plan. 

The  French  Society  agrees  with  the  new  League  of  Free  Na- 
tions Society  in  Great  Britain  that  membership  in  the  League  of 
Nations  should  be  granted  only  to  nations  whose  sincerity  is 
guaranteed  by  democratic  institutions,  and  that  the  League  should 
be  established  now,  before  the  close  of  the  war.  The  advance 
proposals  make  the  interesting  suggestion,  as  one  reason  for  im- 
mediate constitution  of  the  League,  that  the  Society  of  Nations, 
composed  of  the  present  Allies,  "should  control  and  conduct  the 
negotiations  for  the  coming  peace." 


APPEAL  TO  FORM  A  FRENCH  SOCIETY 
OF  NATIONS2 

[The  French  appeal  to  form  an  association  to  establish  a 
Society  of  Nations  now,  which  appears  in  translation  below, 
will  be  read  with  great  interest  for  the  light  it  throws  upon  a 
French  point  of  view.  With  M.  Buisson,  Albert  Thomas  and 
J.  Prudhommeaux  compose  the  Provisional  Committee  issuing 
the  appeal.  M.  Leon  Bourgeois  is  honorary  president  of  the 
French  Association.] 

In  every  land,  since  four  years  of  war  have  ruined  and  worn 
out  the  people,  one  thought  is  asserting  itself  more  positively 

^rom  the  League  Bulletin,  October  12,  19 18. 
2  By  Ferdinand  Buisson.     In  World  Court  for  November,   19 18.  p.  669. 


52  SELECTED    ARTICLES 

day  by  day:  it  is  necessary  for  the  safety  of  the  world  that  we 
should  not  have  simply  a  treaty  of  peace  of  the  traditional  type 
— a  peace  based  on  force.  The  world  must  not  be  menaced  with 
such  a  conflict  again.  The  coming  peace  must  be  enduring  and 
certain.  The  reign  of  law  must  replace  the  reign  of  violence. 
Otherwise  the  battle  is  lost  for  all  of  us. 

Thus,  that  which  was  the  dream  of  noble  precursors  is  be- 
come the  conscious  aim  of  the  soldiers  of  the  democracies  who 
with  one  accord,  declare:  "We  ourselves  are  fighting  that  our 
children  may  not  have  to  fight." 

Thus,  the  project  outlined  before  the  war  by  the  negotiators 
at  the  Hague,  the  full  realization  of  which  the  secret  plans  for 
aggression  on  the  part  of  the  Central  Powers  had  blocked,  im- 
poses itself  to-day  as  a  matter  of  necessity  on  Governments 
which  aim  to  defend  the  right.  It  is  this  project  which  Presi- 
dent Wilson  has  proposed  anew,  taking  up  once  more  and  cloth- 
ing in  luminous  phrase  the  original  French  formula  of  a  "So- 
ciety of  Nations." 

In  several  countries,  statesmen,  students,  thinkers,  and,  what 
is  most  important,  men  of  good- will,  are  forming  groups  to 
study  the  problem  of  such  a  League  of  Nations  and  to  propagate 
its  principles.  Such  a  transformation  of  the  world  can  be 
realized  only  by  wide  popular  support  and  earnest  faith. 

In  America,  The  League  to  Enforce  Peace,  of  which  the 
president  is  Mr.  W.  Howard  Taft,  and  the  World's  Court 
League,  under  the  direction  of  Mr.  Charles  Lathrop  Pack, 
Nicholas  Murray  Butler  and  Albert  Shaw ;  in  England,  a  League 
of  Nations  Society,  with  Mr.  Aneurin  Williams,  and  the  League 
of  Free  Nations  Association,  with  Major  Davies,  have  worked 
to  this  end.  In  France,  despite  the  useful  essays  in  this  direc- 
tion and  plans  frequently  discussed,  as  yet  no  association  is 
found  capable  of  replying  with  authority  to  the  great  foreign 

associations. 
*********** 

Among  the  earnest  proponents  of  the  Society  of  Nations 
there  exists  in  America,  in  England  and  in  France,  a  great  di- 
versity of  conceptions.  The  French  point  of  view  must  be  de- 
fined.   We  invite  to  join  us  all  who  accept  the  following  ideas : 

i.  It  is  necessary  that  this  war  should  end  not  with  special 
treaties  among  the  belligerents  which  would  sanction  the  work 


A   LEAGUE   OF   NATIONS  53 

of  might,  but  with  the  establishment  of  an  international  author- 
ity imposing  on  nations  for  all  the  struggles  present  or  to  come, 
of  whatever  kind  they  may  be,  the  regime,  procedure  and  guar- 
anties of  law. 

2.  The  fundamental  principle  of  law,  the  application  of 
which  international  authority  will  guarantee  for  all,  is  the  right 
of  peoples  freely  to  determine  their  own  destiny.  Nations,  small 
and  large,  have  an  equal  right  to  complete  independence.  All 
sovereignties  are  equal  before  the  law.  All  should  submit  to 
decisions  arrived  at  in  common. 

3.  The  Society  of  Nations  should  be  open  to  every  nation 
which  fulfills  the  following  conditions : 

(a)  To  enter  into  an  agreement  to  respect  the  right  of 
peoples  to  determine  their  own  destiny,  and  to  resort  only  to 
judicial  solutions  for  the  settlement  of  their  disputes,  the  use 
of  force  to  be  reserved  exclusively  to  the  international  society 
itself,  as  the  supreme  sanction  in  case  one  of  the  member  States 
should  resist  its  decisions; 

(b)  To  be  able  to  enter  into  valid  covenants,  especially  in 
matters  of  war  and  peace,  a  possibility  conditioned  on  its  pos- 
sessing a  modicum  of  democratic  institutions  which  will  make 
certain  that  the  will  of  the  people  prevails  and  that  the  govern- 
ment is  adequately  controlled.  Trustworthy  adhesion  to  the 
Society  of  Nations  must  come  not  from  governments  alone  but 
from  the  people's  representatives  as  well. 

This  is  not  the  place  to  consider  whether  the  Society  of  Na- 
tions should  be  open  or  closed,  whether  it  should  be  limited  to 
the  Allies  alone  or  should  embrace  the  enemy.  The  Society  of 
Nations  is  universal  in  its  nature  and  every  nation,  in  principle, 
may  be  admitted  to  it.  But  since  its  fundamental  purpose  is  the 
triumph  of  law,  it  can  be  safely  established  only  among  free  na- 
tions which  covenant  to  respect  the  provisions  of  a  treaty  and 
exchange  the  necessary  guaranties  in  principle  and  practice. 

The  general  principles  being  thus  established,  that  which  for 
us  remains  certain  is  that: 

1.  The  Allies  should  form  their  association  immediately  on 
this  basis.  They  should  work  it  out  as  completely  as  possible  in 
the  direction  of  sanctions  of  every  kind,  moral,  judicial,  eco- 
nomic and,  in  the  last  resort,  military,  as  well  as  in  that  of  pro- 
mulgating general  rules  of  law; 


54  SELECTED    ARTICLES 

2.  Propaganda  can  and  ought  to  be  carried  on  among  all 
peoples,  even  enemy,  in  order  to  indicate  upon  what  foundations 
the  reign  of  law  can  guarantee  the  durable  peace  universally 
desired ; 

3.  The  Society  of  Nations  thus  formed  should  control  and 
conduct  the  negotiations  for  the  coming  peace. 

It  is  to  spread  these  ideas  that  we  ask  you  to  join  us. 
As  M.  Leon  Bourgeois  said  in  1009  at  Rheims :  "Is  there  a 
cause  which  is  higher  and  more  worthy,  particularly  of  our 
country,  of  that  France  against  whom  the  doctrines  of  violence, 
negation  and  barbarism  cannot  prevail,  of  her  who  so  often  in 
the  past  has  been,  and  who  in  the  future  will  remain,  the  guar- 
dian of  liberty  and  the  crusader  for  Right." 
The  Provisional  Committee, 

Ferdinand  Buisson, 
Albert  Thomas, 
J.  Prudhommeaux. 
Temporary  Office: 

74,  Rue  de  l'Universite,  Paris. 

THE  AIM   OF  THE  ASSOCIATION1 

The  French  Association  for  a  Society  of  Nations  has  been 
founded  to  assist  in  the  establishment  of  a  universal  society  of 
nations. 

To  this  end  it  proposes 

1.  To  appeal  to  public  opinion  and  to  assure  to  French  de- 
mocracy the  share  that  belongs  to  it  in  the  world-wide  organiza- 
tion for  right. 

2.  To  study  in  detail  the  political,  judicial,  economic  and 
military  problems  that  prevent,  in  the  relations  between  France 
and  foreign  states,  the  formation  and  development  of  this 
greater  conception  of  international  relations. 

3.  To  collaborate  with  the  associations  in  other  countries, 
that  have  the  same  ends  in  view. 

4.  To  aid  the  government  in  solving  the  difficulties  of  every 
kind  that  the  realization  of  this  idea  can  possibly  encounter. 

1  Since  the  publication  of  the  Appeal  published  in  the  preceding  article, 
the  French  Association  for  a  Society  of  Nations  has  actually  been  estab- 
lished, with  M.  J.  Prudhommeaux  as  secretary,  and  with  headquarters  at 
24,  rue  Pierre-Curie,  Paris  (Ve).  This  statement  of  principles  has  been 
taken  from  the  official  Bulletin,  published  in  December,  19 18. 


A   LEAGUE   OF   NATIONS 


A    LEAGUE   OF   NATIONS1 

There  have  been  three  stages  in  the  growth  of  this  idea, 
answering  to  the  germination  of  the  seed,  the  opening  of  the 
flower,  and  the  ripening  of  the  fruit.  It  germinated,  as  we  said, 
in  the  study.  Between  August,  1914,  and  the  spring  of  1915, 
groups  of  students  and  experts  in  many  different  countries 
turned  towards  the  same  problem.  In  its  practical  effect  the 
American  group  which  issued  in  the  League  to  Enforce  Peace, 
and  of  which  ex-President  Taft  was  the  most  distinguished 
member,  was  the  most  important.  In  this  country  the  group 
which  eventually  founded  the  League  of  Nations  Society,  Lord 
Bryce's  group,  and  a  committee  of  the  Fabian  Society  were  all 
at  work  upon  the  same  ground.  It  was  natural  that  at  these 
early  stages  the  difficult  problem  of  means  of  preventing  war 
and  methods  of  settling  international  disputes  engrossed  atten- 
tion, and  that  the  seed  germinated  in  the  various  schemes  which 
have  since  been  given  to  the  world. 

The  next  stage  was  the  flowering  of  the  idea  among  the 
"common  people."  It  was  obtained  by  propaganda  and  or- 
ganisation. In  the  late  spring  or  early  summer  of  1915  the 
League  to  Enforce  Peace  in  America  and  the  League  of  Nations 
Society  in  England  were  founded  with  the  object  of  pushing 
the  schemes  which  have  been  worked  out  by  the  experts.  At 
The  Hague  a  somewhat  similar,  but  international  instead  of  na- 
tional organisation,  which  has  had  considerable  influence  among 
the  few  European  neutral  peoples,  had  come  into  existence,  the 
Organisation  Centrale  pour  une  Paix  Durable.  But  it  was  the 
League  to  Enforce  Peace  which  first  succeeded  in  widely  popu- 
larising the  idea.  Its  extremely  short  and  able  scheme  had  been 
drafted  by  Mr.  Taft  himself,  and  among  its  most  ardent  sup- 
porters was  another  man  who  had  practical  diplomatic  experi- 
ence, Mr.  Theodore  Marburg.  The  project  was  launched  at  an 
immense  public  meeting  on  June  17th,  1915,  in  the  building  in 
Philadelphia  which  had  witnessed  the  signing  of  the  Declaration 
of  Independence.  The  rapid  success  of  the  movement  showed 
that  the  American  people,  at  least,  were  already  ripe  for  this 
new  idea  of  internationalism;  but  it  was  also  partly  due  to  the 

1  New  Statesman.    9:342-4.    July  14,  1917. 


56  SELECTED    ARTICLES 

American  genius  for  propaganda.  The  organisation  was  spread 
over  the  face  of  the  land,  to  quote  Mr.  Marburg,  "much  in  the 
manner  of  a  political  campaign,"  and  the  fact  that  in  under  two 
years  the  League  received  contributions  amounting  to  136,000 
dollars  must  make  the  mouths  of  propagandist  treasurers  in  this 
niggardly  country  water. 

Many  a  fine  idea  has  withered  and  perished  in  the  stage 
between  its  blossoming  among  people  and  its  maturing  in  the 
cabinets  of  princes  and  statesmen.  No  exotic  or  Utopian  flower 
can  survive  for  long  the  chilling  winds  that  blow  between  gov- 
ernment offices.  But  in  this  case  the  passage  from  popular  en- 
thusiasm to  official  recognition  and  adoption  was  both  rapid  and 
secure.  It  was  due  almost  entirely  to  the  action  of  a  single 
statesman,  and  to  the  dramatic  revolution  in  international  policy 
which  this  conversion  entailed.  The  first  public  sign  which  Presi- 
dent Wilson  gave  of  the  direction  in  which  his  thoughts  were 
traveling  was  in  February,  1916,  when  he  said:  "I  pray  God 
that  if  this  contest  have  no  other  result,  it  will,  at  least,  have 
the  result  of  creating  an  international  tribunal,  and  producing 
some  sort  of  joint  guarantee  of  peace  on  the  part  of  the  great 
nations  of  the  world."  It  is  noticeable  that  at  this  stage  Presi- 
dent Wilson's  conception  of  the  League  was  confined  to  its 
formal  and  narrower  object,  embodied  in  the  different  schemes 
— namely,  an  organisation  for  preventing  war  by  settling  dis- 
putes. Three  months  later,  in  an  address  to  the  American 
League,  he  made  a  pronouncement  which  immediately  carried 
the  idea  into  practical  politics,  and,  by  foreshadowing  a  com- 
plete revolution  in  American  foreign  policy,  forced  it  upon  the 
serious  attention  of  all  the  states  and  statesmen  of  the  world. 
For  he  definitely  states  that  the  United  States  would  be  willing 
to  join  "a  universal  association  of  nations  ...  to  prevent  any 
war  begun  either  contrary  to  treaty  covenants  or  without  warn- 
ing and  full  submission  of  the  causes  to  the  opinion  of  the 
world — a  virtual  guarantee  of  territorial  integrity  and  political 
independence."  Here  again  the  idea  is  expressed  negatively  as 
the  prevention  of  war  and  the  pacific  settlement  of  disputes. 
But  in  America  the  idea  developed  politically  with  surprising 
rapidity.  In  August  an  Act  of  Congress  authorized  the  Presi- 
dent to  call  a  Conference  of  the  Powers  after  the  war  for  the 
purpose  of  organising  the  League.    The  program  of  the  League 


A   LEAGUE   OF   NATIONS  57 

was  embodied  as  a  plank  in  the  platform  of  the  Democratic 
Party  for  the  Presidential  election.  And  in  a  series  of  speeches, 
delivered  by  Mr.  Wilson  both  before  and  after  his  re-election, 
obviously  with  one  eye  upon  the  American  people  and  the  other 
upon  the  belligerents,  he  educated  his  own  people  in  the  notion 
that  in  no  future  war  could  America  be  neutral,  and  he  greatly 
enlarged  his  original  conception  of  the  League.  For  in  these 
later  speeches  it  is  upon  the  League  as  a  basis  for  active  inter- 
national co-operation  and  a  new  international  system  that  he 
concentrates  attention,  and  the  possibility  of  this,  as  he  clearly 
points  out,  comes  from  the  fact  that  the  League  alone  can  pro- 
vide an  adequate  guarantee  for  international  agreements  and 
the  basis  for  permanent  common  action  between  different  states. 
This  new  orientation  of  American  policy  evoked  an  im- 
mediate response  from  the  statesmen  of  Europe,  and  par- 
ticularly from  those  of  this  country.  As  early  as  May,  1916, 
Mr.  Balfour  gave  a  cautious  recognition  to  the  idea;  but 
eight  months  later  he  states  categorically  that  one  of  the 
conditions  of  a  durable  peace  "is  that  behind  international  law, 
and  behind  all  treaty  arrangements  for  preventing  or  limiting 
hostilities,  some  form  of  international  sanction  should  be  de- 
vised which  would  give  pause  to  the  hardiest  aggressor.  These 
conditions  may  be  difficult  of  fulfilment.  But  we  believe  them 
to  be  in  general  harmony  with  the  President's  ideals."  Vis- 
count Grey,  Mr.  Asquith,  Mr.  Lloyd  George,  and  Mr.  Bonar 
Law  in  this  country,  and  M.  Briand  and  M.  Ribot  in  France, 
have  all  expressed  their  agreement  with  the  new  American 
policy.  Finally  the  proposal  to  establish  a  League  of  Nations 
after  the  war  was  officially  proclaimed  as  part  of  the  policy  of 
the  Entente  Governments  in  the  Allied  Note  to  America  of 
January  10th,  191 7.  It  will,  perhaps,  be  useful,  as  indicating  the 
attitude  of  the  Entente  Governments,  to  quote  this  document, 
and  the  pronouncements  of  the  present  Prime  Ministers  of 
Great  Britain  and  France.  The  Allied  Governments  in  their 
Note  stated  that  "in  a  general  way  they  desire  to  declare  their 
respect  for  the  lofty  sentiments  inspiring  the  American  Note 
and  their  whole-hearted  agreement  with  the  proposal  to  create  a 
League  of  Nations  which  shall  assure  peace  and  justice  through- 
out the  world.  They  recognize  all  benefits  which  will  accrue 
to  the  cause  of  humanity  and  civilisation  from  the  institution  of 


58  SELECTED    ARTICLES 

international  arrangements  designed  to  prevent  violent  conflicts 
between  nations,  and  so  framed  as  to  provide  a  sanction  neces- 
sary to  their  enforcement,  lest  an  illusory  security  should  merely 
serve  to  facilitate  fresh  acts  of  aggression."  Mr.  Lloyd  George, 
a  day  after  this  Note  was  presented,  said:  "The  best  security 
for  peace  will  be  that  nations  will  band  themselves  together  to 
punish  the  first  peace-breaker.  In  the  armouries  of  Europe 
every  weapon  will  be  a  sword  of  justice.  In  the  government  of 
men  every  army  will  be  the  constabulary  of  peace."  M.  Ribot, 
in  June,  1917,  said:  "We  echo  the  whole  desire  of  the  President 
of  the  United  States.  Henceforth  justice  must  have  as  a  guar- 
antee the  League  of  Nations  which  is  organising  itself  before 
our  eyes,  and  which  to-morrow  will  be  mistress  of  the  world." 
This  would  be  a  remarkable  record  in  the  history  of  any 
political  reform,  but  its  significance  is  increased  when  one 
remembers  the  immense  bias  towards  conservatism  which  is 
inevitably  operative  in  international  affairs.  In  this  short 
sketch  we  have  naturally  directed  attention  to  the  growth  of 
the  idea  in  America  and  the  countries  of  the  Allies.  But  the 
same  development  has  taken  place  in  the  neutral  countries  of 
Europe.  In  the  Swedish  Riksdag,  the  Dutch  Second  Chamber, 
and  the  Swiss  National  Council  resolutions  on  the  subject  have 
been  debated.  Those  who  speak  for  the  Governments  of  these 
nations  are  necessarily  inclined  under  present  circumstances  to 
extreme  caution,  and  the  attitude  of  the  Dutch  Foreign  Secre- 
tary may  be  quoted  as  typical.  When  the  question  was  discussed 
in  the  Dutch  Chamber  he  refused  to  commit  himself,  but  went  on 
to  express  the  desire  that  "after  the  end  of  the  war  a  collective, 
international  agreement  should  be  created,  which  would  bind 
the  states  to  submit  all  international  disputes  to  judicial  prog- 
ress in  a  Court,  or  to  the  investigation  and  recommendation  of 
a  Council  of  Conciliation,  with  guarantees  for  an  impartial 
composition  of  these  bodies,  with  an  obligation  in  no  case  to 
commit  an  act  of  hostility  until  the  Court  has  pronounced  or 
the  Council  reported,  and  until  the  lapse  thereafter  of  an  ap- 
pointed time." 


A  LEAGUE  OF  NATIONS  ENDORSED 

GOVERNMENTS  PLEDGE  SUPPORT  TO  A 
LEAGUE  OF  NATIONS 

Official  Correspondence  and  Resolutions 

The  Government  of  the  United  States 

In  the  measures  to  be  taken  to  secure  the  future  peace  of 
the  world  the  people  and  Government  of  the  United  States  are 
as  vitally  and  as  directly  interested  as  the  Governments  now  at 
war.  Their  interest,  moreover,  in  the  means  to  be  adopted  to 
relieve  the  smaller  and  weaker  peoples  of  the  world  of  the  peril 
of  wrong  and  violence  is  as  quick  and  ardent  as  that  of  any 
other  people  or  government.  They  stand  ready,  and  even  eager, 
to  cooperate  in  the  accomplishment  of  these  ends  when  the  war 
is  over  with  every  influence  and  resource  at  their  command. — 
President  Wilson's  identic  note  to  the  warring  nations,  dated  at 
Washington,  December  18,  1916. 

The  Governments  of  the  Entente  Allies 

In  a  general  way  they  (the  Allied  Governments)  desire  to 
declare  their  respect  for  the  lofty  sentiments  inspiring  the  Amer- 
ican Note  (of  December  18th)  and  their  wholehearted  agree- 
ment with  the  proposal  to  create  a  league  of  nations  which 
shall  assure  peace  and  justice  throughout  the  world.  They 
recognize  all  the  benefits  that  would  accrue  to  the  cause  of  hu- 
manity and  civilization  from  the  institution  of  international 
arrangements  designed  to  prevent  violent  conflicts  between  na- 
tions, and  so  framed  as  to  provide  the  sanctions  necessary  to 
their  enforcement,  lest  an  illusory  security  should  serve  merely 
to  facilitate  fresh  acts  of  aggression. — Joint  reply  to  the  Amer- 
ican Note,  dated  Paris,  January  10,  1917. 

1  From  "A  Reference  Book  for  Speakers,"  issued  by  the  League  to 
Enforce  Peace. 


6o     .  SELECTED    ARTICLES 

The  Government  of  Great  Britain 

His  Majesty's  Government  .  .  .  feels  strongly  that  the  dura- 
bility of  peace  must  largely  depend  on  its  character  and  that  no 
stable  system  of  international  relations  can  be  built  on  founda- 
tions which  are  essentially  and  hopelessly  defective.  .  .  .  There 
are  those  who  think  that  for  this  disease  international  treaties 
and  international  laws  may  provide  a  sufficient  cure.  _  .  .  The 
people  of  this  country  ...  do  not  believe  peace  can  be  durable 
if  it  be  not  based  on  the  success  of  the  allied  cause.  For  a 
durable  peace  can  hardly  be  expected  unless  three  conditions  are 
fulfilled:  the  first  is  that  the  existing  causes  of  international  un- 
rest should  be  as  far  as  possible  removed  or  weakened;  the 
second  is  that  the  aggressive  aims  and  the  unscrupulous  methods 
of  the  Central  Powers  should  fall  into  disrepute  among  their 
own  peoples;  the  third  is  that  behind  international  law  and  be- 
hind all  treaty  arrangements  for  preventing  or  limiting  hos- 
tilities some  form  of  international  sanction  should  be  devised 
which  would  give  pause  to  the  hardiest  aggressor. — Letter  from 
Foreign  Secretary  Balfour  to  Sir  Cecil  Spring-Rice,  dated  Lon- 
don, January  13,  191 7. 

The  French  Government 

The  Chamber  of  Deputies,  the  direct  expression  of  the  sover- 
eignty of  the  French  people,  expects  that  the  efforts  of  4  the 
armies  of  the  Republic  and  her  allies  will  secure,  once  Prussian 
militarism  is  destroyed,  durable  guarantees  for  peace  and  inde- 
pendence for  peoples  great  and  small,  in  a  league  of  nations 
such  as  has  already  been  foreshadowed. — From  a  resolution 
adopted  by  the  Chamber  of  Deputies  and  approved  by  the  Sen- 
ate, dated  Paris,  June  4  and  June  6,  1917. 

The  working  basis  of  the  committee  appointed  by  the  French 
Government  to  draft  a  plan  for  a  League  of  Nations  is  outlined 
in  an  official  report  recently  received  at  League  Headquarters.  A 
significant  feature  of  this  report  is  the  declaration  of  belief  that 
"whatever  the  definition  on  which  they  (the  Allies)  may  agree 
as  to  the  juridical  rules  which  must  control  in  a  new  Europe  re- 
specting the  functioning  of  the  Society  of  Nations,  it  is  scarcely 
probable  that  the  Central  Empires  will  accept  them  unless  forced 
to  do  so."    The  report  proceeds : 

"In  so  far  as  the  treaty  of  peace  shall  not  submit  the  relations 


A   LEAGUE   OF   NATIONS  61 

of  peoples  among  themselves  to  special  guaranties  of  law,  they 
will  continue,  as  they  are  to-day,  to  be  ruled  solely  by  the  right 
of  the  strongest.  Force  alone  can  therefore  create  the  new 
regime  and  establish  the  rules  of  justice  and  the  sanctions  of 
law  without  which  no  sincere  and  durable  peace  could  be 
founded  or  maintained.  So,  while  discussing  among  themselves 
the  conditions  of  the  future  Society  of  Nations,  the  Allied  Pow- 
ers can  never  forget  that  if  it  is  to  exist  some  day,  this  can 
only  result  from  the  victory  of  their  arms." 

"It  is  necessarily  desirable,"  the  report  says,  "that  the  same 
work  of  preparation  should  be  done  in  the  other  countries  of  the 
Entente.  Thus,  when  the  Allies  shall  have  determined  by  com- 
mon agreement  their  views  on  this  important  subject,  they  will 
be  in  a  position  to  advance  it  with  full  understanding  when  it 
shall  be  brought  forward  in  the  negotiations  for  the  treaty  of 
peace." — The  League  Bulletin,  October  12,  1918. 

The  Russian  Government 

Russia  has  always  been  in  full  sympathy  with  the  broad, 
humanitarian  principles  expressed  by  the  President  of  the 
United  States.  His  message  to  the  Senate,  therefore,  has  made 
a  most  favorable  impression  upon  the  Russian  Government. 
Russia  will  welcome  all  suitable  measures  which  will  help  pre- 
vent a  recurrence  of  the  world  war.  Accordingly  we  can  gladly 
indorse  President  Wilson's  communication. — From  a  statement 
given  out  by  the  Foreign  Office  to  the  Associated  Press,  dated 
Petrograd,  January  26,  191 7. 

The  Government  of  Switzerland 

It  is  with  very  great  interest  that  we  have  taken  note  of  the 
programme  of  your  humanitarian  movement.  In  asking  us  to 
associate  ourselves  in  it  you  have  given  us  a  new  proof  of  the 
sympathy  of  the  United  States  for  Switzerland  and  we  desire  to 
say  to  you  how  much  we  appreciate  it.  The  League  to  Enforce 
Peace,  which  counts  among  its  members  so  many-  eminent  per- 
sonalities, aims  to  insure  the  maintenance  of  peace  after  it  shall 
have  been  concluded;  truly  a  delicate  mission,  but  the  difficulties 
of  which  are  not  to  be  allowed  to  discourage  your  efforts.  You 
regard  as  one  of  the  most  efficacious  means  to  that  end  a  treaty 
of  arbitration  conceived  in  the  same  spirit  as  the  treaty  of  Feb- 


62  SELECTED    ARTICLES 

ruary  13,  1914,  between  Switzerland  and  the  United  States,  a 
treaty  which  all  the  countries  are  to  sign  and  by  which  they 
will  undertake  to  submit  to  the  decision  of  a  supreme  interna- 
tional tribunal  the  conflicts  which  may  arise  between  them  in 
order  to  avoid,  as  far  as  possible,  a  return  of  the  catastrophe 
which  desolates  the  world  to-day.  Switzerland  is  so  much  the 
better  placed  to  appreciate  the  work  of  which  the  United  States 
has  undertaken  the  initiative,  because,  surrounded  on  all  sides 
by  war,  peopled  by  the  race  and  inheriting  the  language  and  the 
culture  of  three  among  the  combatant  nations,  she  is  better  able 
than  any  other  country  to  realize  the  fact  that  war  is  inhuman, 
and  is  contrary  to  the  superior  interest  of  civilization  which  is 
the  common  patrimony  of  all  men.  If,  then,  at  the  conclusion 
of  peace,  the  occasion  should  present  itself  for  us  to  unite  our 
efforts  to  yours,  we  will  not  fail  to  do  so,  and  we  will  be  happy 
to  make  our  contribution  toward  rendering  peace  more  secure 
when  reestablished. — From  a  letter  written  by  Dr.  Arthur  Hoff- 
man as  head  of  the  Political  Department  of  the  Division  of 
Foreign  Affairs,  to  the  Hon.  Theodore  Marburg,  Chairman  of 
the  Committee  on  Foreign  Organization  of  the  League  to  En- 
force Peace,  dated  Berne,  December  11,  1916. 

The  Spanish  Government 

His  Majesty's  Government  is  following  with  keen  sympathy 
the  idea  of  establishing,  after  the  end  of  the  present  war,  an  in- 
ternational league  for  the  purpose  of  preventing  the  peace  of  the 
world  being  again  disturbed,  and  when  the  opportunity  of  doing 
so  arrives,  with  a  guarantee  of  success,  will  lend  its  concourse 
to  the  realization  of  such  a  humanitarian  and  lofty  project. — 
A  cablegram  from  Don  Amalio  Gimeno,  Minister  of  Foreign 
Affairs,  to  the  League  to  Enforce  Peace,  dated  Madrid,  January 
13,   1917. 

Note:  Viscount  Motono,  Japanese  Minister  for  Foreign  Af- 
fairs (January  15,  1917)  and  Viscount  Ishii,  Japanese  Ambas- 
sador Extraordinary  to  the  United  States  (August  30,  191 7) 
have  expressed  themselves  as  in  sympathy  with  the  movement 
for  a  League  of  Nations. 


A   LEAGUE   OF   NATIONS  63 

Hsu  Chih  Chang,  President  of  China 

"The  proposal  of  President  Wilson  for  making  the  league  one 
of  the  terms  of  peace  and  for  the  cancellation  of  the  doctrines 
of  spheres  of  influence  and  balance  of  power  in  Europe  and  else- 
where naturally  receives  the  whole-hearted  endorsement  of 
China." — Statement  made  in  audience  granted  to  Carl  W.  Acker- 
man,  Correspondent  for  the  New  York  Times. 


MEN  AND  ORGANIZATIONS  ENDORSE  A 
LEAGUE     OF     NATIONS » 

Newton  D.  Baker,  United  States  Secretary  of  War. 

"This  league  of  civilized  peoples  is  not  proposed  out  of  the 
Cabinets  of  absolute  Ministers,  but  is  rather  the  passionate  de- 
mand of  the  man  in  the  street,  the  simple  and  the  unsophisti- 
cated who  know  very  little  of  the  intrigues  and  wiles  of  state- 
craft, but  know  a  very  great  deal  about  the  suffering  and  sacri- 
fice which  war  entails.  For  my  own  part,  I  refuse  to  be  timid 
about  America's  capacity  to  do  the  new  things  which  are  needed 
in  a  new  world.  I  decline  to  distrust  our  purposes  or  to  shrink 
from  moving  forward  because  the  road  seems  wider  and  higher 
than  roads  we  have  traveled  hitherto." 

Viscount   Grey   of   Falloden,   former   Foreign    Secretary   of 

Great  Britain 

I  sincerely  desire  to  see  a  league  of  nations  formed  and  made 
effective  to  secure  the  future  peace  of  the  world  after  this  war 
is  over.  I  regard  this  as  the  best,  if  not  the  only,  prospect  of 
preserving  treaties  and  of  saving  the  world  from  aggressive  wars 
in  years  to  come. — Cablegram  to  the  League  to  Enforce  Peace, 
November  24,  1916. 

The  establishment  and  maintainance  of  a  league  of  nations 
such  as  President  Wilson  had  advocated  is  more  important  and 
essential  to  secure  peace  than  any  of  the  actual  terms  of  peace 
that  may  conclude  the  war.  It  will  transcend  them  all.  The 
best  of  them  will  be  worth  little  unless  the  future  relations  of 
states  are  to  be  on  a  basis  that  will  prevent  a  recurrence  of 
militarism  in  any  state. — "A  League  of  Nations/'  Pamphlet  pub- 
lished by  the  University  Press,  Oxford. 


64  SELECTED    ARTICLES 

David  Lloyd  George,  Premier  of  Great  Britain 

A  large  number  of  small  nations  have  been  reborn  in  Europe, 
and  these  will  require  a  league  of  nations  to  protect  them  against 
the  covetousness  of  ambitious  and  grasping  neighbors.  In  my 
judgment,  a  league  of  nations  is  absolutely  essential  to  perma- 
nent peace. 

We  shall  go  to  the  peace  conference  to  guarantee  that  a 
league  of  nations  is  a  reality.  I  am  one  of  those  who  believe 
that  without  peace  we  cannot  have  progress.  A  league  of  na- 
tions guarantees  peace  and  gurantees  also  an  all-round  reduction 
of  armaments,  and  that  reduction  of  armaments  is  a  guarantee 
that  you  can  get  rid  of  conscription  here. 

Of  course,  we  must  have  in  this  country  an  efficient  army  to 
police  the  Empire,  but  I  am  looking  forward  to  a  condition  of 
things,  with  the  existence  of  a  league  of  nations,  under  which 
conscription  will  not  be  necessary  in  any  country. — Address  to 
his  Liberal  Supporters,  November  n,  1918. 

Herbert  Asquith,  Ex-Premier  of  Great  Britain 

We  are  bound,  and  not  only  bound,  but  glad,  to  give  respect- 
ful attention  to  such  pronouncements  as  the  recent  speech  of  .  .  . 
President  Wilson.  That  speech  was  addressed  ...  to  the 
American  Senate,  and  through  them  to  the  people  of  the  United 
States.  It  was,  therefore,  a  declaration  of  American  policy,  or, 
to  speak  more  precisely,  of  American  ideals.  The  President 
held  out  to  his  hearers  the  prospect  of  an  era  when  the  civiliza- 
tion of  mankind,  banded  together  for  the  purpose,  will  make 
it  their  joint  and  several  duty  to  repress  by  their  united  author- 
ity, and  if  need  be  by  their  combined  naval  and  military  forces, 
any  wanton  or  aggressive  invasion  of  the  peace  of  the  world. 
It  is  a  fine  ideal,  which  must  arouse  all  our  sympathies. — Speech 
in  the  House  of  Commons,  February  I,  1917* 

Mr.  Asquith's  endorsement  of  a  league  of  nations,  in  his 
speech  before  the  National  Liberal  Club  on  July  10,  was  un- 
equivocal. "There  can  be  no  clean  peace,"  he  declared,  "which 
does  not  clear  away  the  cause  of  war.  We  should  realize,"  he 
continued,  "and  act  as  though  we  realize,  that  a  league  of  na- 
tions is  neither  a  vague  political  abstraction  nor  an  empty  rhetor- 
ical formula,  but  a  concrete  and  definite  idea,  and  that  its  em- 


A   LEAGUE   OF   NATIONS  65 

bodiment  in  practical  shape  is  by  far  the  most  urgent  construc- 
tive problem  of  international  statesmanship." 

That  Mr.  Asquith,  in  his  address,  was  speaking  for  his  party 
as  well  as  for  himself,  is  further  evident  from  the  resolutions 
adopted  by  a  representative  conference  of  the  Liberal  party, 
held  at  the  House  of  Commons  on  the  very  day,  as  it  happened, 
of  Mr.  Asquith's  speech.  The  conference,  called  to  consider  the 
political  situation,  adopted  three  resolutions  intended  to  serve  as 
a  party  platform.  The  first  committed  the  party  to  the  support 
of  a  league  of  nations.  Whether  or  not  Mr.  Asquith  himself  in- 
spired the  resolution  is  of  little  consequence.  What  matters  is 
that,  when  he  spoke,  he  did  so  with  the  knowledge  that  the  party 
was  behind  him.  ...  On  a  league  of  nations,  the  Liberal  party 
has  now  taken  its  stand. — Nation,  July  20,  1918.  p.  58. 

Arthur  James  Balfour,  Foreign  Secretary  of  Great  Britain 
This  is  no  knight-errant  business,  in  which  men,  doubtless  of 
high  ideals,  set  forth  on  some  distant  quest  looking  out  for 
wrongs  to  remedy,  for  fair  ladies  to  release,  with  all  the  other 
romantic  objects  of  medieval  chivalry.  This  is  a  hard,  practical 
necessity,  and  it  requires  indeed  imagination  to  grasp  it.  It  re- 
quires something  more  than  a  merely  parochial  outlook  to  see 
our  highest  interests,  but  our  highest  moral  and  national  in- 
terests, our  noblest  aspirations,  are  bound  up  with  the  fate  of 
countries  whose  language  we  can  not  speak  and  with  whose 
history,  I  dare  say,  a  good  many  of  us  here  are  very  imperfectly 
acquainted.  Slowly,  indeed,  has  the  lesson  been  driven  in,  but 
it  has  been  driven  into  the  hearts  and  consciences  of  this  people 
in  a  manner  they  will  never  forget,  that  we  can  not  think  merely 
within  cur  own  shores,  of  our  own  liberties,  of  our  own  de- 
velopments, but  that  modern  civilized  nations  are  so  intercon- 
nected, their  common  interests  are  so  great,  that  unless  they 
will  exercise  some  coercion  over  their  unruly  or  criminal  mem- 
bers, the  very  fabric  of  civilization  may  be  shattered. — Recent 
Speech  at  Edinburgh.  Reprinted  from  the  Literary  Digest,  56: 
13.  February  2,  1918. 

Andrew  Bonar  Law,  British  Chancellor  of  the  Exchequer 

President  Wilson's  aim  is  to  have  peace  now  and  security  for 

peace  in  the  future.    That  is  our  aim  also  and  it  is  our  only  aim. 


66  SELECTED    ARTICLES 

He  hopes  to  secure  this  by  a  league  of  peace,  and  he  not  only- 
spoke  in  favor  of  such  a  league  but  he  is  trying  to  induce  the 
American  Senate  to  take  the  steps  necessary  to  give  effect  to  it. 
It  would  not  be  right  to  look  upon  the  question  as  altogether 
Utopian.  You  know  that  only  quite  recently,  almost  up  to  our 
own  time,  duelling  was  common,  and  now  the  idea  that  private 
quarrels  should  be  settled  by  the  sword  has  become  unthinkable. 
I  think  it  is  not  impossible — I  hope  it  may  prove  possible — that 
the  time  may  come  when  the  nations  of  the  world  will  look  upon 
what  Cromwell  described  as  his  great  work  as  their  work  too — 
that  of  being  a  constable  to  preserve  peace  in  the  parish. — Speech 
at  Bristol,  January  24,  191 7. 

General  Jan  C.  Smuts 

When  the  great  American  Republic  joined  us  in  the  strug- 
gle, it  was  not  only  with  material  weapons,  but  with  all  that 
moral  reinforcement  which  came  from  the  splendid  vision  and 
moral  enthusiasm  of  President  Wilson,  speaking  on  behalf  of 
the  people  of  the  United  States.  His  was  the  great  vision  of  a 
League  of  Nations,  and  our  main  concern  now  must  be  the 
saving  of  Europe  for  the  future  of  the  world.  As  we  organ- 
ized the  world  for  victory,  let  us  now  organize  the  world  against 
hunger.  That  will  be  the  best  preparation  for  the  new  order  of 
international  good  feeling  and  co-operation. — Address  to  Party 
of  American  Editors,  London,  November  14,  1918. 

Archbishop  of  Canterbury 

I  can  speak  for  no  government,  but  I  am  convinced  that  the 
mass  of  thoughtful  Christian  folks  in  England  feel  with  an  earn- 
estness beyond  words  the  force  of  President  Wilson's  conten- 
tion, that  for  reasons  not  of  policy  but  of  principle,  not  of  na- 
tional interest  but  of  righteousness  and  justice  and  enduring 
peace,  we  want  a  League  of  Nations  on  the  very  lines  he  has 
drawn. — Letter  to  the  London  Times. 

M.  Alexandre  Ribot,  Former  Premier  of  France 

It  is  necessary  that  a  League  of  Peace  be  founded  in  the  same 
spirit  of  democracy  that  France  has  had  the  honor  of  introduc- 
ing into  the  world.  The  nations  now  in  arms  will  constitute  the 
Society  of  Nations.    This  is  the  future  of  humanity,  or  one  might 


A   LEAGUE   OF   NATIONS  67 

well  despair  of  the  future.  President  Wilson  upon  this  point  is 
with  us.  All  nations  not  predatory  must  unite  to  prevent  others 
from  disturbing  the  peace.  They  must  unite  in  an  armed  league 
to  make  respected  throughout  the  world,  peace,  justice  and  lib- 
erty.— Address  to  the  French  Senate,  June  6,  191 7. 

M.  Rene  Viviani,  Head  of  the  French  Mission  to  the  United 

States 

Your  flag  bears  forty-eight  stars,  representing  forty-eight 
states.  Each  state  has  its  own  legislature,  but  all  are  subject  to 
Federal  laws  that  were  made  for  all.  May  we  not  hope  for 
the  day  when-  all  the  nations  of  the  earth  will  be  united  as  are 
your  states,  under  certain  broad  and  general  restrictions  that  will 
make  it  forever  impossible  for  some  mad  autocrat  to  play  havoc 
with  the  universe. — Speech  at  the  Boston  Public  Library,  May  13, 
1917. 

Sr.  Augusto  Ciuffelli,  Member  of  the  Italian  War  Mission 
This  must  be  the  last  war.  Nations  cannot  in  the  future 
squander  all  their  money  on  military  preparedness.  The  new 
spirit  must  make  us  live  together  in  the  ideals  of  peace  and 
justice.  Italy  is  eager  to  take  her  place  in  a  new  world  or- 
ganized for  peace. — Statement  to  the  press,  June  1,  1917. 
George  Friedrich  von  Hertling,  former  Chancellor  of  the 

German  Empire 

XIV. — The  last  point,  the  14th,  deals  with  a  league  of  nations. 
Regarding  this  point,  I  am  sympathetically  disposed,  as  my 
political  activity  shows,  toward  every  idea  which  eliminates  for 
the  future  a  possibility  or  a  probability  of  war,  and  will  pro- 
mote a  peaceful  and  harmonious  collaboration  of  nations.  If  the 
idea  of  a  league  of  nations,  as  suggested  by  President  Wilson, 
proves  on  closer  examination  really  to  be  conceived  in  a  spirit  of 
complete  justice  and  complete  impartiality  toward  all,  then  the 
Imperial  Government  is  gladly  ready,  when  all  other  pending 
questions  have  been  settled,  to  begin  the  examination  of  the  basis 
of  such  a  league  of  nations. — Reply,  before  the  Main  Committee 
of  the  Reichstag,  to  President  Wilson*s  address  of  January  8, 
1918. 


68  SELECTED    ARTICLES 

Bernhard  Dernburg,  Ex-Colonial  Secretary  of  the  German 

Empire 

The  situation  at  large  demands  international  distribution 
.  .  .  secured  by  international  agreements  which  bind  the  states 
and  do  not  leave  a  free  hand  to  the  individual — that  is  to  say, 
there  must  be  a  league  of  nations  for  the  universal  world  supply 
of  a  humanity  destitute  of  raw  materials. 
His  Holiness  Pope  Benedict 

We  now  wish  to  make  a  more  concrete  and  practical  proposal 
and  to  invite  the  governments  of  the  belligerents  to  come  to  an 
agreement  upon  the  following  points  which  seem  to  be  a  basis  of 
a  just  and  durable  peace,  leaving  to  them  the  task  of  analyzing 
and  completing  them. 

First  of  all,  the  fundamental  point  must  be  that  the  material 
force  of  arms  be  substituted  by  the  moral  force  of  right,  from 
which  shall  arise  a  fair  agreement  by  all  for  the  simultaneous 
and  reciprocal  diminution  of  armaments,  according  to  the  rules 
and  guarantees  to  be  established,  in  a  measure  necessary  and 
sufficient  for  the  maintenance  of  public  order  in  each  state. 

Then  in  the  substitution  for  armies  of  the  institution  of  arbi- 
tration with  its  high  pacifying  function,  according  to  the  rules  to 
be  laid  down  and  the  penalties  to  be  imposed  on  a  state  which 
would  refuse  either  to  submit  a  national  question  to  arbitration 
or  to  accept  its  decision. — Message  to  the  belligerent  govern- 
ments, August  i,  191 7. 

Central  Organization  for  a  Durable  Peace 

The  work  of  the  Hague  Conferences  with  a  view  to  the 
peaceful  organization  of  the  Society  of  Nations  shall  be  devel- 
oped.— From  the  program  of  an  international  gathering  called 
by  the  Dutch  Anti-War  Council,  at  The  Hague,  April  7-10,  1915. 

Woman's  Peace  Party 

That  the  Woman's  Peace  Party  shall  in  every  way  possible 
promote  a  public  demand  that  an  agreement  for  a  League  of 
Nations  shall  be  made  the  basis  of  the  war  settlement,  and  it 
hereby  petitions  the  Government  to  urge  as  speedily  as  possible 
upon  the  allied  governments  an  explicit  agreement  to  this  end, 
that  all  nations  on  the  earth  may  know  that  they  will  be  assured 
mutual  protection  and  economic  equality  upon  the  complete  es- 


A   LEAGUE   OF   NATIONS  69 

tablishment  of  such  a  league. — Resolutions  adopted  at  the  Third 
Annual  Meeting,  Philadelphia,  December  6-7,  1917. 

Neutral  Conference  for  Continuous  Mediation 

Far  more  important,  however,  for  the  welfare  of  humanity 
than  the  solutions  thus  far  suggested  is  the  creation  of  an  in- 
ternational organization,  founded  upon  law  and  justice,  which 
would  include  an  agreement  to  submit  all  disputes  between  states 
for  peaceful  settlement.  Hence  the  almost  universal  opinion 
that  in  the  coming  treaty  of  peace,  the  principle  of  such  an  inter- 
national order  of  justice  must  be  accepted. — From  the  Statement 
issued  by  the  Conference,  in  session  at  Stockholm,  on  the  initia- 
tive of  Henry  Ford,  Easter,  1916. 

International  Committee  of  Women  for  Permanent  Peace 
The  Peace  Settlement  Conference  should  provide  for  ...  a 
concert  or  league  of  nations  open  to  all  states. — From  Program 
prepared  by  the  American  Section  for  presentation  to  the  pro- 
posed After-the-War  Congress  of  the  Committee. 

Union  for  Democratic  Control 

The  foundation  of  all  future  hopes  of  permanent  peace  lies 
in  the  establishment  of  a  League  of  Nations.  .  .  .  Our  first 
task  is  to  convince  the  masses  of  every  country  that  in  a  League 
of  Nations  they  may  find  a  means  of  defense  which  renders 
their  old  militarism  unnecessary. — Peace  Program  of  the  Union. 

Oppressed  Nations  of  Middle  Europe 

That  there  should  be  formed  a  league  of  the  nations  of  the 
world  in  a  common  and  binding  agreement  for  genuine  and 
practical  co-operation  to  secure  justice  and  therefore  peace 
among  nations. — From  the  "Declaration  of  Independence" 
adopted  at  Independence  Hall,  Philadelphia,  October  26,  1918. 

Inter-Allied  Labor  and  Socialist  Conference,  February  22, 

1918 

Whoever  triumphs,  the  peoples  will  have  lost  unless  an  inter- 
national system  is  established  which  will  prevent  war.  What 
would  it  mean  to  declare  the  right  of  peoples  to  self-determina- 
tion if  this  right  were  left  at  the  mercy  of  new  violations,  and 


70  SELECTED    ARTICLES 

was  not  protected  by  a  supernational  authority?  That  authority 
can  be  no  other  than  the  League  of  Nations,  in  which  not  only 
all  the  present  belligerents,  but  every  other  independent  state, 
should  be  pressed  to  join. — Memorandum  on  War  Aims  Adopted 
by  the  Conference. 

Social  Democratic  League  of  America  and  the  Jewish   So- 
cialist League 

We  approve  the  peace  terms  adopted  by  the  Inter-Allied  So- 
cialist and  Labor  Conferences. — Joint  Manifesto. 

Inter-Allied  Parliamentary  Committee 

London,  Oct.  29,  (British  Wireless  Service.) — Resolutions 
unanimously  passed  at  the  recent  conference  of  the  French, 
Italian,  Belgian,  and  British  sections  of  the  Inter-Allied  Parlia- 
mentary Committee  .  .  .  said  that  it  was  of  paramount  im- 
portance that  the  governments  of  the  allied  nations  should  forth- 
with proceed  to  prepare  in  consultation  a  scheme  for  the  estab- 
lishment after  the  war  of  machinery  designed  to  secure  and 
develop  a  "Society  of  Nations"  as  a  proper  means  for  attaining 
a  durable  peace  guarded  by  the  joint  action  of  free  nations. — 
New  York  Times,  October  30,   1918. 

Summon  Christians  to  League  of  Peace 

London,  Feb.  22,  (Delayed). — The  following  appeal  has  been 
issued  over  the  signatures  of  the  archbishop  of  Canterbury,  the 
Bishop  of  Winchester,  the  Bishop  of  Oxford,  the  Bishop  of 
Southwark,  the  Bishop  of  Peterborough,  the  Rev.  Dr.  James 
Cooper,  Moderator  of  the  Established  Church  of  Scotland;  the 
Rev.  Dr.  W.  B.  Settle,  the  Rev.  Dr.  J.  Scott  Lidgett,  the  Rev. 
Dr.  F.  B.  Meyer,  the  Rev.  Dr.  D.  S.  Cairns,  the  Rev.  Dr.  J. 
Estlin  Carpenter,  the  Rev.  Dr.  Alexander  Connell,  the  Rev. 
Father  Plater,  Lord  Henry  Bentinck,  Lord  Parmoor,  the  Rt. 
Hon.  Arthur  Henderson,  George  Lansbury,  Arthur  Mansbridge, 
Professor  A.  S.  Peake,  and  Principal  T.  F.  Roberts : 

"We,  the  signatories  of  this  document,  belonging  to  various 
Christian  bodies,  have  noted  with  the  greatest  satisfaction  the 
prominent  place  given  by  the  President  of  the  United  States  and 
by  successive  Prime  Ministers  and  Foreign  Secretaries  of  our 
own  country  to  the  proposal  of  a  League  of  Nations.    The  idea 


A   LEAGUE   OF   NATIONS  71 

has  also,  as  was  to  be  expected,  won  wide  support  among  the 
official  representatives  of  Christian  communions,  e.g.,  in  the 
Pope's  appeal  to  the  powers  last  summer  and  in  the  recent  Con- 
vocation of   Canterbury. 

"But  more  is  yet  needed  to  make  manifest  and  effective  the 
full  force  of  Christian  conviction  in  its  favor,  still  largely  latent, 
but  capable  of  being  evoked  if  only  the  vital  import  of  the  idea 
be  brought  forcibly  home  to  Christian  people  at  large. 

"In  the  name,  then,  of  the  Prince  of  Peace,  we  would  call  on 
them  duly  to  consider  and  openly  to  welcome  the  idea  of  such  a 
league  as  shall  safeguard  international  right  and  permanent 
peace  and  shall  also  have  power  in  the  last  resort  to  constrain  by 
economic  pressure  or  armed  force  any  nation  refusing  to  submit 
to  arbitration  or  international  adjudication  in  the  first  instance 
any  dispute  with  another  tending  to  war. — New  York  Times, 
February  24,  1918. 

France  and  the  League  of  Nations 

Within  the  last  three  months  the  project  of  a  league  of  na- 
tions has  come  strikingly  to  the  front  in  French  Socialist  politics, 
stimulated  largely  by  the  adoption  by  the  special  committee  of 
the  French  Socialist  Party  of  the  proposals  in  the  Stockholm 
manifesto.  In  the  manifesto  the  league  of  nations  is  regarded 
as  the  only  permanent  guarantee  of  peace;  it  maintains  that  the 
particular  problems  of  the  settlement  must  be  dealt  with  in  ac- 
cordance with  the  ideas  of  public  right  which  the  league  will 
uphold.  The  league  itself  must  be  such  an  integral  part  of 
settlement  that  its  formation  cannot  possibly  be  left  until  after 
the  war. 

The  French  Socialists,  when  formulating  the  terms  upon 
which  they  were  prepared  to  enter  the  projected  Ribot  and  actual 
Painleve  governments,  urged  that  it  would  be  well  for  the  allied 
governments  to  establish  between  themselves,  without  delay,  a 
system  of  arbitration,  with  published  treaties,  which  would  per- 
manently ensure  the  equitable  settlement  of  disputes  between 
them.  The  French  Socialists  have  also  demanded  that  the  league 
shall  be  based  "upon  the  faith"  of  all  the  peoples  involved,  and 
have  formulated  certain  practical  proposals  for  the  establishment 
of  this  condition.  They  propose  that  the  admittance  of  any 
nation  into  the  league  shall  be  conditioned  by  the  sanction  of 
the  national  parliaments. 


V  SELECTED    ARTICLES 

On  September  19,  M.  Lemery,  in  an  address  to  the  French 
Government,  declared  that  the  question  of  the  establishment  of 
the  league  of  nations  was  no  longer  merely  an  academic  one. 
The  league  was  already  in  existence,  but  it  should  be  provided 
with  machinery;  the  legal  and  political  principles  and  the  eco- 
nomic constitution  of  the  league  should  be  defined.  To  this  M. 
Painleve  answered,  that  the  government  was  convinced  that 
it  would  be  able  to  carry  through  the  project  of  forming  a 
league  of  nations;  but  he  added  that  the  solution  did  not  rest 
with  them  alone.  The  formation  of  the  league  depended  largely 
on  England's  willingness  to  co-operate. 

The  idea  of  the  league  has  been  widely  discussed  in  the 
French  press,  notably  in  an  article  in  L'Oeuvre,  which  insists 
that  universal  peace  can  only  be  led  up  to  and  brought  into  being 
and  guaranteed  by  the  league  of  nations.  The  Petit  Parisien 
has  lately  published  a  striking  article  by  M.  Jules  Destree,  Bel- 
gian Ambassador  in  Petrograd,  urging  the  immediate  establish- 
ment of  the  league.  He  contends  that  each  nation's  war  pro- 
gram will  extend  mathematically,  or  contract,  according  to  the 
chances  of  the  league  becoming  good  or  bad. 

The  organizing  committee  of  the  Stockholm  Conference  in 
the  manifesto  just  issued,  outlining  the  general  conditions  of 
peace,  states  that  in  order  to  give  peace  a  durable  character,  the 
contracting  parties  are  to  declare  themselves  ready  to  create  a 
society  of  nations  on  a  basis  of  compulsory  arbitration  and  gen- 
eral disarmament.  The  Nationalist  Congress  of  the  Socialist 
Party  at  Bordeaux  has  passed  a  resolution  declaring  that  al- 
though the  French  Government  has  made  satisfactory  declara- 
tion on  war  aims,  and  the  Chamber  of  Deputies  has  proclaimed 
at  public  sessions  its  intention  to  prepare  the  society  of  nations 
and  reject  all  tendency  towards  conquest  and  annexation,  all  the 
Allies  have  not  done  the  same  thing  to  the  same  extent.  The 
resolution  declares  it  is  therefore  necessary  that  the  Govern- 
ment of  France,  profiting  by  the  initiative  of  the  Russian  Rev- 
olution, shall  obtain  from  the  Allies  a  common  declaration  that 
will  make  international  rights  the  sole  basis  of  the  national 
claims  of  each  of  them. 

In  the  draft  of  the  new  constitution  drawn  up  by  the  Labor 
Party  in  this  country,  the  objects  of  the  party  under  the  inter- 
national heading  are  defined  as  follows:     "To  co-operate  with 


A   LEAGUE   OF   NATIONS  73 

the  labor  organizations  in  other  countries,  and  to  assist  in  or- 
ganizing a  federation  of  nations  for  the  maintenance  of  freedom 
and  peace,  and  for  the  establishment  of  suitable  machinery  for 
the  adjustment  and  settlement  of  international  disputes  by  con- 
ciliation or  judicial  arbitration,  and  for  such  international  legis- 
lation as  may  be  practicable." — Advocate  of  Peace,  January, 
1918.  p.  21. 

Pan-American  Labor  Conference 

We  declare  that  the  following  essential  fundamental  princi- 
ples must  underlie  the  peace  as  well  as  the  principles  of  all 
civilized  nations :  a  league  of  the  free  peoples  of  the  world  in 
a  common  covenant  for  genuine  and  practical  cooperation  to 
secure  justice  and  therefore  peace  in  relations  between  nations. 
— From  the  Resolutions  adopted  at  Laredo,  Texas,  November  13, 
1018. 

Swedish  plans  for  international  organization  were  given 
expression  at  the  Scandinavian  Inter-Parliamentary  Conference 
in  Stockholm  in  September.  These  provide  for  (1)  the  estab- 
lishment of  a  league  comprising  all  of  the  nations  of  the  world; 
(2)  mutual  engagements  between  the  States  to  submit  every 
dispute  which  cannot  be  diplomatically  settled  and  is  of  a  judi- 
cial nature  to  the  arbitration  either  of  the  existing  Hague  Court 
or  a  specially  designated  body;  (3)  an  international  committee 
of  investigation  with  power  to  treat  all  questions  other  than 
these,  the  while  all  countries  concerned  agree  to  wait  peaceably 
on  its  decision,  and  (4)  a  permanent  international  council  as  the 
centralizing  organ  of  the  various  international  committees. 

Swiss  interest  in  a  league  of  nations,  declared  President 
Calonder  not  long  ago,  was  of  a  fundamental  character,  due  to 
the  fact  that  Switzerland  itself  was  but  a  federation  of  peoples 
of  four  different  languages  and  cultures,  yet  bound  fast  with  a 
strong  sentiment  of  mutual  interest  and  common  nationality.  In 
his  speech  before  the  Swiss  National  Council,  in  which  he  made 
clear  Swiss  attitude  of  high  approbation  of  the  League  of  Na- 
tions' idea,  Dr.  Calonder  quoted  the  motto  given  Switzerland  by 
her  great  writer  Gottfried  Keller  as  the  heart  and  soul  of  all  in- 
ternational unity:  "Friendship  in  freedom."     He  referred  to  the 


74  SELECTED    ARTICLES 

political  life  of  his  country  as  a  veritable  preliminary  to  a 
League  of  Nations.  In  this  respect,  too,  Switzerland  has  an  in- 
ternational mission  that  is  unmistakable :  "To  further  peace  and 
friendship  among  all  peoples  and  to  prove  to  the  world  by  her 
example  that  different  races  and  people  of  a  different  tongue 
could,  on  the  basis  of  mutual  esteem,  on  the  basis  of  freedom 
and  equality,  be  united  into  one  happy  community." 

A  German  League  of  Nations,  not  necessarily  the  same 
thing  as  the  German  world  originally  planned,  is,  according  to 
Amsterdam  gossip  a  matter  of  serious  discussion  in  the  German 
Foreign  Office,  in  which  the  collaboration  of  prominent  deputies 
and  jurists  has  been  permitted.  Proposals,  it  is  said,  have  al- 
ready been  drafted  which  in  the  main  harmonize  with  the 
Majority  Party's  general  program.  A  special  commission  has 
been  proposed  to  study  these  proposals  and  frame  a  complete 
draft  of  the  German  version  of  a  League  of  Nations. — Advocate 
of  Peace,  November,  1918.  p.  312. 


LEGISLATIVE    RESOLUTIONS  1 

Seventeen  joint  or  concurrent  resolutions  favoring  the  en- 
trance of  the  United  States  into  a  League  of  Nations  to  enforce 
peace  have  heretofore  been  adopted  by  State  Legislatures. 

The  South  Carolina  Concurrent  Resolution 

Resolved,  by  the  Senate  and  House  of  Representatives  of  the 
State  of  South  Carolina :  That  we  heartily  endorse  the  position 
of  Woodrow  Wilson,  President  of  the  United  States,  in  advo- 
cating that,  after  the  close  of  the  present  war,  the  United 
States  take  the  initiative  in  forming  a  League  of  Nations  to 
guarantee  the  future  peace  of  the  world. 

Extract  from  the  Tennessee  Concurrent  Resolution 

Therefore  Be  It  Resolved  by  the  Senate  of  the  State  of 
Tennessee,  the  House  of  Representatives  concurring,  that  the 
General  Assembly  hereby  express  its  unqualified  approval  of  the 

1  From  "What  is  this  then  that  is  written,  etc.,"  issued  by  the  League 
to  Enforce  Peace. 


A   LEAGUE   OF   NATIONS  75 

position  of  Woodrow  Wilson,  President  oi  the  United  States, 
in  advocating  that  the  United  States  take  the  initiative  after  the 
close  of  the  war  in  organizing  a  League  of  Nations  to  preserve 
the  future  peace  of  the  world. 

Extract  from  the  Oklahoma  Concurrent  Resolution 

Therefore  Be  It  Resolved  by  the  Senate  of  the  State  of 
the  Senate  concurring  therein,  that  we  publicly  express  our  con- 
fidence in  President  Woodrow  Wilson,  with  the  action  he  has 
taken  for  the  adoption  of  a  world-wide  Monroe  Doctrine,  that 
we  endorse  his  support  of  a  League  of  Nations  to  preserve  the 
peace  of  the  world  and  urge  Congress  to  uphold  his  hand  by 
the  adoption  of  such  a  worthy  measure. 

Extract  from  Illinois  Concurrent  Resolution 

Resolved,  that  it  is  expedient  and  desirable  for  the  United 
States  of  America,  after  the  close  of  the  present  war,  and  upon 
such  terms  as  may  be  arranged  with  the  approval  of  the  Senate 
of  the  United  States,  to  join  a  League  of  Nations,  the  object  of 
which  shall  be  better  to  preserve  order,  and  thus  more  ade- 
quately to  secure  from  interference  the  rights  of  the  citizens  of 
the  United  States  and  of  all  neutrals  upon  the  high  seas. 

Massachusetts   Concurrent  Resolution.     (Same  resolution 

by  Legislatures   in   New  York,   New  Jersey  and   Rhode 

Island.) 

Whereas,  the  President  of  the  United  States  has  declared 
that  our  present  and  immediate  task  is  to  win  the  war,  and 

Whereas,  he  has  set  forth  that  the  chief  aim  of  the  war  is 
to  secure  a  permanent  peace  guaranteed  by  a  partnership  of  free 
nations.     Therefore,  be  it 

Resolved,  by  the  General  Court  of  Massachusetts,  both 
Houses  concurring,  that  the  Commonwealth  of  Massachusetts 
pledges  all  its  resources  to  the  vigorous  prosecution  of  the  war 
until  Prussian  autocracy  has  been  defeated;  and  be  it  further 

Resolved,  that  the  Commonwealth  of  Massachusetts  favor 
the  entrance  of  the  United  States,  after  the  war,  into  a  League 
of  Nations  to  safeguard  the  peace  that  must  be  won  by  the 
joint  military  forces  of  the  Allied  nations;  and  be  it  further 


76  SELECTED    ARTICLES 

Resolved,  that  certified  copies  of  these  resolutions  be  sent  by 
the  Secretary  of  the  Commonwealth  to  the  President  and  to  the 
presiding  officers  of  both  branches  of  Congress  and  to  each  of 
the  Senators  and  Representatives  of  Massachusetts. 

[Similar  resolutions  have  been  adopted  by  the  legislatures  of 
Delaware,  Maryland,  Georgia,  Texas,  Kentucky,  Louisiana,  Mis- 
sissippi, Wisconsin  and  Florida — Comp.] 


Miscellaneous  Resolutions 

The  formation  of  a  League  of  Nations  to  enforce  peace,  with 
the  United   States  as  a  member  nation  thereof,  has  been  en- 
dorsed by  formal  resolution  by  hundreds  of  organized  bodies  in 
the  United  States.     Among  these  may  be  noted: 
Alabama  State  Bar  Association. 
American   Association  of   Master  Mates   and  Pilots    (Palmetto 

Association,  No.  74). 
American  Insurance  Union. 
American  Manufacturers  Export  Association. 
Army  and  Navy  Union  Convention. 
Associated  Advertising  Clubs  of  the  World. 
Board  of  Bishops  of  the  United  Brethren  in  Christ. 
California  State  Rural  Letter  Carriers  Association. 
Chamber  of  Commerce  of  the  United  States. 
Connecticut  Grand  Chapter,  Order  Eastern  Star. 
Connecticut  State  Association  of  Letter  Carriers. 
Diocesan  Convention  of  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church. 
Esperanto  Association  of  North  America. 
Federal  Council  of  the  Churches  of  Christ  in  America. 
General  Synod  Evangelical  Lutheran  Church — U.  S.  A. 
Gideons. 

Grand  Aerie  Fraternal  Order  of  Eagles. 
Grand  Army  of  the  Republic. 
Grand  Chamber  Order  Knights  of  Friendship. 
Grand  Council  of  Colorado,  Improved  Order  of  Red  Men. 
Grand  Lodge  Independent  Order  of  St.  George. 
Illinois  Lumber  and  Builders  Supply  Dealers   Association. 
International  Railway  Foremen's  Association. 
Iowa  Branch  Daughters  of  American  Revolution. 
Kansas  State  Live  Stock  Association. 


A   LEAGUE   OF   NATIONS  77 

Kentucky  Pure  Bred  Live  Stock  Association. 

Maine  State  Board  of  Trade. 

Master  House  Painters  and  Decorators  Association  of  Ohio. 

Michigan  State  Association  of  Letter  Carriers. 

Military  Order  of  Foreign  Wars  of  the  United  States. 

National  Association  of  Brass  Manufacturers. 

National  Association  of  Builders'  Exchanges. 

National  Association  of  Merchant  Tailors  of  America. 

National  Association  of  Postoffice  Laborers. 

National  Association  of  Retail  Monument  Dealers. 

National  Economic  League. 

National  Federation  Implement  and  Vehicle  Dealers  Association. 

National  Reform  Association. 

National  Retail  Dry  Goods  Association. 

Nebraska  Retail  Hardware  Association. 

Nebraska  State  Grange. 

New  Jersey  Knights  of  the  Golden  Eagle. 

New  York  Branch  Daughters  of  American  Revolution. 

New  York  Fraternal  Congress. 

New  York  State  Federation  of  Women's  Clubs. 

North  Carolina  Farmers  State  Convention. 

North  Dakota  State  Grange. 

Ohio  Retail  Furniture  Dealers  Association. 

Pan-American  Labor  Conference  (at  Laredo,  Texas). 

Past  Exalted  Rulers  Association  B.  P.  O.  E.,  of  Connecticut. 

Pennsylvania  Grand  Army  of  the  Republic. 

Pennsylvania  State  Grange. 

Rebekah  Assembly  of  Michigan. 

Retail  Lumber  Dealers  Association  of  New  York. 

Southern  Commercial  Congress. 

Southwestern  Shoe  Travelers  Association. 

Supreme  Fraternal  Order  of  Orioles. 

Supreme  Sanctuary   Shepherds  of  America. 

United  Confederate  Veterans. 

Wisconsin  Electrical  Association. 

Wisconsin  Gas  Association. 

Wisconsin  Retail  Hardware  Association. 

Wisconsin  State  Bottlers  Association. 

Women's  Committee  Council  of  National  Defense. 


DISCUSSION 


THE  FOUNDATIONS  OF  A  LASTING  PEACE * 

If  there  is  one  thought  and  purpose  which  has  been 
emphasised  above  all  others  in  the  announcements  and  avowals 
of  responsible  statesmen,  that  this  is  a  war  to  end  war,  it  is  that 
we  are  fighting  for  a  lasting  peace.  But  one  thing  is  certain :  if 
the  deep  underlying  causes  of  this  war  remain  at  its  conclusion, 
if  after  all  the  expenditure  and  suffering  the  nations  return  to 
the  status  quo  ante,  then  the  war  of  to-day  will  indeed  prove  to 
be  but  the  drumfire  that  prepares  the  way  for  the  great  drive 
of  the  next  war.  But  this  must  not  be.  The  treaty  of  peace 
must  be  a  treaty  of  lasting  peace.  What  kind  of  a  peace  will 
last? 

A  peace  that  will  last  must  be  a  general  peace.  The  reason 
for  this  is  obvious.  It  is  because  the  principles  of  a  lasting 
peace  among  nations  are  universal  principles.  It  is  because 
compromise  would  be  surrender.  The  democratic  nations  are 
determined  to  discredit  the  doctrine  that  might  makes  right. 

A  peace  that  will  last  must  be  a  genuine  peace.  It  must 
not  be  a  patched-up  peace,  a  temporary  truce  based  on  ex- 
pediency if  it  is  to  be  permanent,  it  must  be  founded  on  justice 
and  the  principles  of  public  right.  It  must  not  be  a  fraudu- 
lent peace,  a  hypocritical  peace.  It  must  be  democratic  for 
the  reason — as  President  Wilson  has  pointed  out — that  "only 
free  peoples  can  hold  their  purpose  and  their  honor  steady  to 
a  common  end  and  prefer  the  interests  of  mankind  to  any 
narrow  interests  of  their  own." 

A  peace  that  will  last  must  be  a  generous  peace.  It  must 
be  a  peace  without  vengeance,  and  a  peace  without  vengeance 
is  a  very  different  thing  from  a  peace  without  victory.  It 
means  the  sort  of  peace  Lincoln  made  with  the   South— after 

iBy  Robert  Goldsmith,  author  of  "A  League  to  Enforce  Peace."  In 
The  Bookman  for  May,  19 18. 


80  SELECTED    ARTICLES 

Lee's  surrender.  But  Lincoln  saw  with  unblurred  vision  that 
no  permanent  peace  was  possible  among  the  states  unless  and 
until  slavery  was  crushed.  It  is  not  otherwise  to-day.  Wilson 
sees  now,  whether  or  not  he  saw  at  once,  that  there  can  be 
no  lasting  peace  among  the  nations  until  the  Thing  called 
militarism  is  crushed  and  destroyed.  Nor  is  this  idea  of  a 
generous  peace  some  vague  hope  of  impractical  idealism;  it  is, 
on  the  contrary  sound  political  philosophy.  History  has 
demonstrated  repeatedly  that  the  other  kind  of  peace  does  not 
and  cannot  last. 

A  peace  that  will  last  must  be  a  guaranteed  peace.  Very 
well;  but  how  is  peace  to  be  guaranteed?  The  answer  is  that 
the  structure  of  peace  must  be  founded  on  international  cove- 
nants, international  courts,  an  international  constabulary,  and 
international  co-operation.  Covenants,  courts,  a  constabulary, 
and  co-operation — these  are  the  four  cornerstones.  A  cove- 
nanted peace  is  a  peace  between  peoples.  The  old  diplomacy  is 
played  out.  Hereafter  no  treaty  can  be  held  to  be  valid  or  bind- 
ing upon  the  population  of  a  country  unless  it  is  underwritten 
by  the  people  of  the  country;  until  it  is  endorsed  by  the  workers 
and  the  women  through  their  responsible  representatives  in 
popularly  elected  parliaments.  President  Wilson,  in  his  address 
to  Congress  on  January  8th  last,  makes  this  the  first  item  in  his 
programme:  "Open  covenants  of  peace,  openly  arrived  at,  after 
which  there  shall  be  no  private  understandings  of  any  kind,  but 
diplomacy  shall  proceed  always  frankly  and  in  the  public  view." 
Hitherto  the  towering  structure  of  society  has  been  based 
on  the  foundations  of  brute  force  alone.  But  the  trembling 
sills  and  girders  of  fear  and  force  can  no  longer  be  trusted  to 
bear  the  weight  and  stand  the  strain  of  modern  sky-scraper 
states.  New  underpinning  of  reason  and  justice  must  be  sub- 
stituted if  we  would  have  the  edifice  endure.  The  reason 
civilisation  has  collapsed  and  international  society  become  a 
heap  of  charred  and  smoking  ruins  to-day  is  because  the 
superstructure  has  been  raised  upon  such  rotten  timbers  and 
cross-beams  as  sinister  diplomacy  and  unconscionable  intrigue. 
International  covenants  would  do  away  with  all  this  and  plant 
the  peace  of  the  world  on  firm  foundations. 

International    tribunals — courts    and    councils — would    need 
to  be  created,  or  resurrected,  if  reason  and  justice  are  to  be 


A   LEAGUE   OF   NATIONS  81 

made  operative  in  international  relations.  The  covenant  against 
aggression  would  pledge  all  signatories  to  submit  to  public 
hearing  before  a  constituted  court  or  council  "all  disputes  of 
every  nature  whatsoever"  which  might  arise  between  them.  In 
all  probability  it  will  be  found  expedient  to  set  up  two  tribunals : 
a  Court  of  Justice  to  hear  and  decide  questions  that  can  be  de- 
termined by  the  established  and  acknowledged  rules  of  interna- 
tional law  and  equity,  and  a  Council  of  Conciliation  to  compose 
by  compromise  and  mutual  concession  all  other  vexed  questions 
that,  unless  peacably  settled,  would  be  likely  to  lead  to  war. 
Such  a  council,  it  is  believed,  would  discover  and  apply  ways 
for  changing  the  status  quo  without  resort  to  arms. 

War  is  the  ripened  fruit  of  lawlessness.  Society  has  slowly 
progressed  from  barbarism  to  civilisation  by  the  gradual  sub- 
stitution of  law  for  anarchy.  War,  which  is  direct  action,  may 
appear  to  be  the  shortest  distance  between  two  points.  As  a 
matter  of  fact  it  is  clumsy  as  well  as  cruel,  and  as  stupid  as  it 
is  horrible.  It  is  anachronistic  and  should  be  obsolescent.  Prob- 
lems of  territorial  expansion  and  economic  opportunity  should 
be  thought  out  rather  than  fought  out,  because  howitzers  and 
machine  guns  do  not  always  speak  the  truth. 

Few  of  us  need  to  be  reminded  that  the  time  was  when  in- 
dividuals took  the  settlement  of  their  personal  grievances  in 
their  own  hands.  In  the  tenth  century  trial  by  battle  was  sanc- 
tioned by  the  state.  The  disputants  went  to  the  public  field  and 
fought  it  out.  The  judge  had  to  adjourn  court  and  render  a 
verdict  in  favour  of  the  winner.  Men  no  longer  appeal  to  the 
field  of  honour  but  to  the  court  of  justice.  Individuals,  for  the 
most  part,  have  learned  to  settle  their  quarrels,  and  to  seek  re- 
dress for  injuries  suffered,  by  law  instead  of  war.  It  is  now 
proposed  that  the  nations  go  and  do  likewise. 

The  signatory  Powers  who  covenanted  among  themselves  to 
exhaust  every  peaceable  means  of  settlement  before  going  to 
war  would  constitute  what  President  Wilson  has  felicitously 
called  a  league  of  honour.  In  the  event  of  a  signatory  to  the 
treaty  creating  the  League  of  Nations  threatening  war  against 
a  fellow-member,  without  first  submitting  its  disputes  to  public 
review  and  report,  all  the  other  members  of  the  League  would 
immediately  join  in  bringing  to  bear  both  diplomatic  and  eco- 
nomic pressure  to  stop  the  would-be  aggressor.     If,  after  this 


82  SELECTED    ARTICLES 

joint  protest  and  non-military  coercion,  the  recalcitrant  persisted 
with  overt  acts  of  hostility  and  actually  commenced  war,  in 
violation  of  the  terms  of  the  covenant,  it  is  proposed  that  all 
the  other  nations,  in  fulfillment  of  their  treaty  pledge,  should, 
with  their  combined  military  and  naval  forces,  come  to  the  de- 
fense of  the  one  attacked.  Some  students  of  the  subject  propose 
that  this  "mutual  defence"  stipulation  apply  likewise  in  the  event 
of  any  member  of  the  League  being  attacked  by  an  outside 
Power.  Some  believe  that  the  joint  economic  and  military  force 
of  the  states  of  the  League  should  be  used  only  to  compel 
arbitration  and  enforce  delay;  others  have  become  convinced 
that  the  whole  procedure  would  degenerate  into  a  tragic  farce 
unless  the  decision  of  the  international  court  were  also  enforced. 

At  the  present  writing  it  is  the  official  position  of  the  Amer- 
ican League  to  Enforce  Peace  that  the  element  of  force  should 
be  used  only  to  compel  states  of  the  League  to  submit  their 
questions  in  dispute  for  preliminary  enquiry.  However,  many 
of  the  most  intelligent  and  influential  members  of  that  organisa- 
tion are  more  sanguine  of  success  for  a  less  conservative  pro- 
gramme. 

An  international  constabulary,  in  any  event,  would  have  to 
be  organised  to  give  effective  sanction  to  the  terms  of  the 
covenant.  And  this  will  be  true  whether  much  or  little  is  to  be 
enforced;  whether,  after  the  war,  we  are  to  have  an  all-around 
reduction  of  armaments  or  a  general  increase  in  armaments; 
whether  the  several  nations  are  all  to  retain  their  distinct  mili- 
tary organisations  or  pool  them  into  some  kind  of  an  interna- 
tional military  establishment. 

Some  will  ask,  Is  it  proposed  that  peace  should  be  guar- 
anteed by  force  of  arms?  It  is;  but  the  arms  would  not  be 
owned  and  controlled,  absolutely,  by  an  irresponsible  imperial 
state.  Pax  Romana— or  Pax  Teutonicus— is  precisely  the  method 
which  Germany  wants  to  impose  on  a  cowed  and  subject  world. 
It  will  never  do  in  these  times.  No  modern  nation,  not  even 
poor,  distracted  Russia,  would  long  submit  to  that  kind  of  peace. 
The  peoples  of  all  free  nations  will  refuse  to  be  slaves  of  the 
sword  of  Prussia.  If  the  choice  were  exigent  they  would  prefer 
annihilation. 

But  if  not  by  the  method  of  Pax  Romana  how  then  would 
peace  be  guaranteed  by  force  of  arms  ?    Is  it  to  be  by  the  method 


A   LEAGUE   OF   NATIONS  83 

known  as  an  "armed  peace"?  No,  for  an  armed  peace  is  the 
inevitable  military  expression  for  the  political  system  known  as 
balance  of  power,  concerning  which  the  President  has  said,  "the 
great  game  of  the  balance  of  power  has  been  forever  dis- 
credited." The  rivalry  in  armaments  made  necessary  by  this 
system  is  largely  responsible  for  the  present  war.  We  must 
substitute  a  league  of  nations  for  the  balance  of  power;  co- 
operative armaments  for  competitive  armaments;  police  force 
for  martial  force,  and  settlement  by  reason  for  settlement  by 
might. 

It  is  not  necessary  to  discuss,  in  academic  fashion,  the  con- 
flicting philosophies  of  right  or  wrong  as  to  the  use  of  force. 
Sensible  men,  mindful  of  the  realities,  assume  the  right  to  em- 
ploy force  in  defence  of  civilisation  as  against  an  outlaw  in- 
dividual, or  an  outlaw  nation.  The  justification  of  force  is  a 
worthy  purpose.  The  instruments  of  force  must  be  dedicated  to 
the  cause  of  law  and  order.  It  should  not  seem  so  surprising, 
on  reflection,  that  we  dare  not  put  our  trust  in  Christian  senti- 
ment or  enlightened  public  opinion,  alone,  to  prevent  war:  we 
do  not  pretend  to  maintain  law  and  order  within  nations  by 
good- will ;  we  use  force,  police  and  militia. 

It  should  not  require  any  prodigal  expenditure  of  thought  to 
reach  the  conclusion  that  those  who  propose  to  end  war  by  good- 
will and  moral  suasion  are  the  visionaries  who  are  blinded  to 
the  realities  by  the  dazzling  brilliance  of  their  dreams.  The 
position  of  the  so-called  "voluntary  groups,"  who  want  to  get 
along  without  the  use  of  force,  is  identical  with  that  of  philo- 
sophic anarchism.  Some  day  the  world  may  be  ruled  by  the 
force  of  love;  but  meanwhile  why  squander  time  loafing  about 
the  corridors  of  such  an  air  castle?  Force  must  be  made  to 
wear  the  trappings  and  become  the  obedient  servant  of  reason 
and  justice. 

But,  after  all,  these  proposals — covenants,  courts,  constab- 
ulary— are  of  a  negative  character.  They  are  all  calculated,  as 
lets  and  hindrances,  to  postpone  or  prevent  war.  But  peace  is 
more  than  the  mere  absence  of  war.  Some  positive  provisions 
must  be  undertaken;  some  seawall  of  community  of  interest 
must  be  constructed  if  the  world  is  not  again  to  be  deluged  with 
a  flood-tide  of  war:  there  must  be  international  co-operation. 
Political  autocracy  is  not  the  only  cause  of  modern  war.    Priv- 


84  SELECTED    ARTICLES 

ilege  is  Protean,  taking  many  forms  and  shapes.  Emperors  are 
not  the  only  arrogant  monarchs  and  imperialism  does  not  always 
wear  the  purple  robe  of  dynastic  ambition.  There  is  such  a 
thing  as  financial  imperialism;  there  are  czars  of  commerce  and 
monarchs  of  the  market.  Ways  and  means  must  be  discovered, 
or  invented,  to  provide  for  change  and  progress.  The  road  to 
peace  cannot  be  paved  with  cannon-balls  for  cobble-stones.  The 
parade  of  progress  must  not  be  between  serried  ranks  and 
bristling  bayonets.  It  is  ardently  hoped  that  the  Council  of 
Nations  will  labour  to  promote  justice  and  discourage  privilege. 
The  axe  must  be  laid  to  the  very  roots  of  the  Upas  Tree  of 
greed. 

Now  it  is  quite  possible  that  suggestions  have  been  advocated 
for  guaranteeing  peace — such  as,  for  example,  the  adoption  of 
universal  free  trade — that  are  more  fundamental  and  far-reach- 
ing than  the  scheme  of  an  international  league.  The  immediate 
practicability  of  the  plan,  and  its  logical  cogency,  should  de- 
termine our  preference.  And  this  is  equally  true  with  respect 
to  the  particular  plan  of  a  League  of  Nations  to  which  we  give 
our  adherence. 

It  is,  of  course,  quite  pertinent  to  ask  whether  the  Great 
Powers  will  so  far  relinquish  their  sovereignty  as  to  sign  a 
treaty  which  will  bind  them  in  advance  to  arbitrate  their  dis- 
putes, particularly  those  involving  vital  questions  of  national 
purpose  and  honour.  In  reply,  it  may  be  said  at  once,  that  a 
number  of  the  Great  Powers  have  already  expressed  themselves 
— some  more,  some  less  officially — as  ready  to  share  in  the  or- 
ganisation of  some  such  League  as  is  here  proposed.  And  so 
far  as  sacrificing  a  measure  of  sovereignty  is  concerned,  it  is 
perhaps  well  to  remind  ourselves  that  the  interdependence  of 
the  modern  world  and  the  rapid  spread  of  democratic  sentiments 
have  together  conspired  to  make  the  earlier  idea  of  absolute 
sovereignty  little  more  than  a  political  heirloom. 

Some  have  argued  that  even  if  the  Powers  did  so  bind 
themselves  they  would  not  hesitate  to  break  faith  when  the 
test  came.  If  that  is  so  (and  I  for  my  part  do  not  for  a 
moment  believe  it  is  so)  then  why  all  this  hullabaloo  against 
Germany  for  breaking  faith  and  invading  Belgium!  Of  course, 
it  must  be  confessed  that  nations  before  now,  and  other  na- 
tions as  well  as  Germany,  have  torn  up  treaties  as  scraps  of 


A  LEAGUE   OF  NATIONS  85 

paper.  But  the  fact  remains,  and  is  easily  verified,  that  the  vast 
majority  of  contracts  between  nations  have  been  scrupulously 
kept. 

Americans  will  say — they  have  already  said  it  many  times — 
that  Washington  warned  our  young  Republic  against  the  danger 
of  entangling  alliances  with  the  Old-World  monarchies.  But 
1796  was  a  long  time  ago,  and  since  then  the  American  experi- 
ment has  been  quite  universally  approved.  Our  line  is  gone  out 
through  all  the  earth.  The  advice  of  Jefferson  and  Washington, 
that  we  come  out  and  be  separate;  the  admonition  that  we 
should  not  be  unequally  yoked  together  with  unbelievers  in 
democracy,  though  pertinent  in  the  eighteenth  century,  is  no 
longer  pertinent.  The  Mayflower  has  voyaged  back  to  Europe 
freighted  with  liberty  and  democracy.  As  a  matter  of  history 
we  won  our  first  fight  for  freedom  by  an  alliance  with  France. 
Could  Washington  speak  today  he  would  doubtless  hail  the 
advent  of  a  league  of  liberals  to  oppose  mediaeval  monarchs. 
Did  he  not,  in  his  day,  lead  thirteen  colonies  against  the  tyranny 
of  a  despotic  sovereign?  To-day  more  than  thirteen  nations 
are  threatened  by  a  tyranny  far  worse  than  that  of  George  the 
Third. 

This  is  not  to  deny  that  for  the  United  States  to  join  the 
League  of  Nations  would  be  a  new  departure.  But  such  a  de- 
parture from  the  policy  of  aloofness  would  not  really  be  a  break 
with  tradition.  Maturity  is  a  new  and  radical  departure  from 
Youth,  but  it  is  at  the  same  time  a  normal  development  and 
evolution. 

Neutrality  is  at  an  end.  Isolation  is  a  thing  of  the  past.  It 
is  manifest  that  America  can  no  longer  be  an  anchorite  nation. 
Our  intellectual,  moral,  economic,  and  financial  interests  have 
become  inextricably  interwoven  with  the  fabric  of  the  whole 
world.  Seclusion  is  an  illusion.  America  is  cast  to  play  an 
important  role  in  the  drama  of  history. 


86  SELECTED    ARTICLES 


A  LEAGUE  OF  NATIONS1 

One  of  the  objections  I  find  to  a  League  of  Nations  is  this — 
that  people  say,  "You  have  had  these  schemes  before.  They  have 
never  come  to  anything.  Why  should  they  come  to  anything 
now?"  Well,  the  League  of  Nations  is  machinery,  and  machinery 
is  of  no  use  unless  there  is  power  to  drive  it.  You  might,  long 
before  the  discovery  had  been  made  how  to  apply  the  power 
of  steam,  have  had  the  locomotive,  with  its  wheels,  pistons,  and 
everything  else  complete,  but  without  motive  power  it  would 
have  been  useless,  and  the  wheels  would  not  have  gone  round. 
That  is  what  the  machinery  of  a  League  of  Nations  has  been 
in  previous  years.  The  whole  point  in  relation  to  a  League  of 
Nations  is  that  after  this  war  there  may  be  in  mankind  and  in 
the  world  a  motive  power  sufficient  to  work  that  machinery. 

There  has  been  no  war  like  this  in  recorded  history.  Never 
before  have  you  had  whole  nations  put  through  the  mill  of  war. 
The  suffering  has  been  on  a  scale  unprecedented.  Are  we  to  sup- 
pose that  human  nature  is  so  rigid,  so  unteachable,  so  unalterable 
after  all  that  tremendous  experience  that  this  generation  is  going 
through,  as  to  have  no  permanent  or  lasting  change,  not  only 
in  men's  minds  but  of  their  feelings?  This  war  has  been  un- 
precedented in  another  way  than  that.  It  has  shown  the  world 
and  the  present  generation  not  merely  what  war  means  to-day, 
but,  with  all  the  inventions  of  science,  what  war  will  mean 
twenty  years  hence,  if  it  takes  place — something  more  horrible 
than  this  war  has  been.  Our  whole  case  is  that  the  world, 
after  this  experience  and  the  revelation  before  it  of  what  future 
wars  will  be,  will  be  convinced  at  the  end  of  this  war  that 
another  world  war  will  be  a  crime  and  a  disaster  to  be  avoided 
at  all  costs.  That  is  what  you  must  rely  upon  to  make  the 
machinery  of  the  League  of  Nations  work,  and  one  of  the 
things  upon  which  I  rely  is  that  in  our  time,  at  any  rate,  the 
men  who  survive  this  war  and  come  back  from  the  fighting  to 
their  own  country,  these  are  the  men  who  are  going  to  be  most 
earnest  in  keeping  the  peace  of  the  future.    We  all  of  us  see 

1  By  Viscount  Grey  of  Falloden;  speech  delivered  at  Central  Hall,  West- 
minster, October  10,  19 18.  Reprinted  from  the  Living  Age,  November  23, 
1918. 


A  LEAGUE  OF  NATIONS  87 

some  of  them  from  time  to  time.  I  know  the  feelings  of  those 
I  do  see.  I  am  thinking  of  men  from  the  ranks  who  are  com- 
ing home.  They  say,  if  this  war  is  to  be  brought  to  a  successful 
conclusion  it  will  make  peace  secure,  but  they  are  determined 
that  after  it  is  secured,  as  far  as  it  lies  within  their  power  there 
shall  be  no  more  fighting  in  their  lifetime.  Your  League  of 
Nations,  therefore,  is  machinery,  for  it  will  carry  out  the  deter- 
mination on  the  part  of  the  world  that  it  will  stop  future  war. 
If  that  determination  does  not  exist,  the  machinery  will  be  of 
no  use;  but  if  the  determination  does  exist,  then  I  believe  the 
world  at  large  will  insist  on  the  machinery  being  brought  into 
use.  That  is  why  I  believe  that  a  League  of  Nations — the  for- 
mation of  a  League  of  Nations — is  not  only  possible,  but  is 
a  test  of  whether  the  experience  of  this  war  has  altered  the 
whole  point  of  view  of  the  nations  in  regard  to  war  in  general. 

Let  me  take  one  or  two  points  which  we  ought  to  have 
definitely  settled  in  our  minds  in  regard  to  the  working  of  the 
League  of  Nations.  How  is  it  going  to  affect  the  fiscal  question, 
for  instance?  There,  again,  I  take  what  I  understand  to  be 
President  Wilson's  attitude  the  other  day.  He  says,  "No  eco- 
nomic boycott  within  the  League  of  Nations,"  but  he  leaves,  or 
I  understand  he  contemplates  leaving,  each  individual  member 
of  the  League  of  Nations — each  Empire,  each  State,  each  Re- 
public, whatever  it  may  be — free  within  the  League  to  settle  its 
own  fiscal  question  for  itself.  We  may  have  our  own,  and  we 
probably  shall  have  our  own,  fights  here  on  the  fiscal  question; 
it  will  be  very  surprising  if  there  is  not  some  discussion  and 
some  controversy;  but  with  regard  to  the  League  of  Nations 
you  may  keep  that  outside  the  question  of  the  league,  and  settle 
it  for  yourselves  in  your  own  way;  but  having  settled  your 
fiscal  system,  you  must  recognize  that  in  a  League  of  Nations 
you  will  be  bound  to  apply  that  fiscal  system,  whatever  it  may 
be,  equally  to  all  the  other  members  of  the  league.  You  won't 
be  able  to  differentiate  among  them.  That  I  understand  to  be 
the  principle  laid  down  by  President  Wilson,  and  that  is  the 
principle  which  certainly  commends  itself  to  me.  That,  I  think, 
is  a  principle  which  must  be  accepted  if  the  League  of  Nations 
is  to  be  a  league  that  will  guarantee  the  peace  of  the  world. 

There  is  another  important  point  in  connection  with  the 
fiscal  side  of  the  League  of  Nations.     During  this  war  there 


88  SELECTED    ARTICLES 

has  been  brought  into  existence  an  economic  boycott  of  the 
enemy  countries.  I  am  told  it  has  been  very  effective.  The  ma- 
chinery for  it  is  in  existence.  In  my  opinion,  the  Allies  who 
have  brought  that  machinery  into  existence  should  keep  that 
machinery  ready  as  part  of  the  League  of  Nations,  and  if  in 
future  years  an  individual  member  of  the  League  of  Nations 
breaks  the  covenant  of  that  league,  that  economic  weapon  is 
going  to  be  a  most  powerful  weapon  in  the  hands  of  the  league 
as  a  whole.  I  think  that  economic  weapon  is  most  valuable  as 
a  future  influence  in  keeping  the  peace  and  in  deterring  nations 
who  have  come  into  the  League  of  Nations  from  breaking  any 
covenant  in  the  league.  It  will  be  a  most  valuable  influence  for 
that  purpose;  but  then,  if  it  is  to  be  a  valuable  influence  for 
that  purpose  you  must  not  bring  it  into  existence  before  the 
purpose  has  arisen,  or  before  there  has  been  some  breach  of 
the  covenant. 

Well,  now  I  come  to  another  thorny  and  difficult  subject 
connected  with  the  League  of  Nations,  the  question  of  what  is 
called  disarmament.  I  have  tried  as  far  as  I  can  to  get  the 
fiscal  difficulties  put  as  clearly  as  possible  so  that  they  will 
not  stand  in  the  way  of  a  League  of  Nations.  You  have  got 
to  handle  also  this  question  of  disarmament  very  carefully.  You 
will  have  many  apprehensions  in  this  country  that  somehow  or 
other  a  League  of  Nations  is  going  to  put  us  in  a  disadvantage- 
ous position,  where  we  may  be,  by  bad  faith  or  otherwise,  put 
in  a  position  in  which  we  are  not  sufficiently  capable  of  de- 
fending ourselves.  I  think  you  have  got  to  go  very  carefully 
in  your  League  of  Nations  with  regard  to  definite  proposals 
that  may  be  suggested  or  adopted  with  regard  to  what  is  called 
disarmament.  One  thing  I  do  not  mind  saying.  Before  this 
war  the  expenditure  on  armaments,  naval  and  military,  had  been 
going  up  by  leaps  and  bounds.  Germany  had  been  forcing  the 
pace  in  both.  She  has  led  the  way  up  the  hill  in  increasing  ex- 
penditure on  armaments.  She  must  lead  the  way  down  the  hill. 
That  that  is  a  first  condition  from  our  point  of  view  goes 
without  saying — there  can  be  no  talk  of  disarmament  until  Ger- 
many, the  great  armer,  has  disarmed. 

But  then  I  think  we  must  go  farther  than  that.  I  think 
the  League  of  Nations  might  insist  upon  each  government  which 
is   a  member  of   the   League   of   Nations  becoming  itself  re- 


A   LEAGUE   OF   NATIONS  89 

sponsible  for  the  amount  of  armaments  made  in  its  own  country. 
Your  difficulty  now  is  that  in  a  given  country  there  may  be  a 
vast  number  of  ships  of  war,  guns,  and  munitions  of  war  being 
made,  and  the  government  may  say,  "Oh,  these  are  being  made 
by  private  firms  for  other  countries,  and  we  have  nothing  to 
do  with  them."  I  do  not  see  why  it  should  be  impossible  for 
governments  to  agree  that  they  will  keep  that  matter  in  their 
own  hands,  that  they  will  give  the  fullest  public  information 
and  the  fullest  opportunities  for  acquiring  information  as  to 
the  actual  amount  of  what  are  called  armaments  being  con- 
structed, or  available  in  each  country  at  any  given  time.  I  do 
not  see  why  that  should  not  be  done  in  the  future.  And  if  that 
were  done,  and  you  found  some  governments  beginning  to 
force  the  pace  in  armaments,  I  rather  think  that  you  would  find 
the  matter  being  brought  before  the  League  of  Nations,  and  a 
discussion  would  arise  as  to  whether  it  was  time  to  bring  the 
economic  weapon  into  use  before  things  went  further.  The 
League  of  Nations  may  have  considerable  power,  provided  the 
governments  admit  responsibility  with  regard  to  the  amount  of 
armaments  being  constructed. 

But  remember,  even  so,  you  will  never,  by  any  regulations 
you  may  make  about  armaments,  dispose  completely  of  the  ques- 
tion. Supposing  to-morrow,  or  after  the  war  is  over,  the  fi- 
nancial pressure  were  so  great,  and  the  feeling  that  another  war 
was  remote  was  so  strong,  that  ships  of  war,  munitions  of  war, 
ceased  to  be  constructed  in  the  world  at  large,  and  those  now 
in  existence  were  allowed  to  lapse  or  become  obsolete  until 
armaments  had  disappeared  in  the  form  in  which  we  know 
them.  Supposing  all  that  happened,  you  would  not  have  settled 
the  question,  because  then  the  potential  weapons  of  war  would 
be  your  merchant  ships  and  commercial  aeroplanes.  All  those 
things  will  be  developed  after  the  war,  and  in  the  construction 
of  those  things  you  can  have  no  limitation — they  must  go  on 
being  built  by  private  firms.  You  cannot  limit  the  merchant 
ships  or  the  amount  of  commercial  aeroplanes  to  be  built;  and 
the  fewer  the  armaments,  fighting  aeroplanes,  and  ships  of  war 
in  the  ordinarily  accepted  sense,  the  more  important  potentially 
as  weapons  of  war  become  the  things  you  use  in  commerce,  your 
ships,  aeroplanes,  and  chemicals  of  all  kinds.  Well,  then,  is 
not  the  moral  of  it  all  this,  that  the  one  thing  which  is  going 


go  SELECTED    ARTICLES 

to  produce  disarmament  in  the  world  is  a  sense  of  security? 
And  it  is  because  I  believe  that  a  League  of  Nations  may  pro- 
duce, and  will  produce,  that  sense  of  security  in  the  world  at 
large  which  will  make  disarmament — disarmament  in  the  sense 
of  the  reduction  of  armaments — a  reality  and  not  a  sham,  that 
is  one  reason  for  advocating  a  League  of  Nations  in  order  that 
we  may  have  that  sense  of  security. 

Now  I  come  to  one  other  point.  We  must  with  a  League 
of  Nations  be  sure  that  in  all  these  ideals  which  have  been  put 
forward — that  in  putting  forward  these  ideals  we  have  been 
saying  what  we  mean  and  meaning  what  we  said.  When  the 
time  comes,  and  the  war  has  been  brought  to  a  successful  con- 
clusion, we  must  make  it  clear  that  the  object  of  the  League 
of  Nations  movement  has  been  to  get  a  League  of  Nations 
formed — and  that  is  clear  in  every  speech  President  Wilson  has 
made  about  it — into  which  you  can  get  Germany,  and  not  formed 
in  order  that  you  may  find  a  pretext  for  keeping  Germany  out. 
On  the  other  hand,  your  League  of  Nations  must  not  be  a 
sham,  and  you  must  have  no  nation  in  it  which  is  not  sincere. 
That  means  that  you  must  have  every  government  in  the  League 
of  Nations  representing  a  free  people,  a  free  people  which  is 
as  thoroughly  convinced  as  are  the  countries  who  now  desire 
the  League  of  Nations,  of  the  objects  of  the  league,  and  are 
thoroughly  determined  to  carry  out  those  objects  in  all  sincerity. 
That  you  must  do.  When  you  come  to  define  democracy — real 
democracy,  and  not  sham  democracy — I  would  call  to  mind  that 
it  is  not  a  question  of  defining  special  conditions.  We  here, 
under  the  form  of  constitutional  monarchy,  are  as  democratic 
as  any  republic  in  the  world;  and  I  trust  the  people  of  this 
country  to  do  what  Mr.  John  Morley,  as  he  then  was,  once  said 
with  regard  to  a  Jingo.  He  said,  "I  cannot  define  a  Jingo,  but 
I  know  one  when  I  see  him."  I  believe  the  people  of  this  coun- 
try are  perfectly  capable,  though  they  may  not  wish  to  define 
what  constitutes  a  democracy,  of  knowing  a  democracy  when 
they  see  it.  As  President  Wilson  has  repeatedly  said,  you  can 
trust  no  government  which  does  not  come  to  you  with  the 
credentials  that  it  exists  with  the  confidence  of  the  people  be- 
hind it,  and  is  responsible  to  that  people,  and  to  no  one  else. 

But  there  are  one  or  two  things  more  which  I  think  may 
be  done  by  a  League  of  Nations,  and  which  are  very  important. 


A  LEAGUE   OF   NATIONS  91 

Supposing  the  league  once  formed,  the  treaty  signed,  the  treaty 
binding  the  nations  composing  the  league  to  settle  any  disputes 
that  may  arise  between  them  by  some  method  other  than  that 
of  war,  and  each  of  them  undertaking  an  obligation  that,  if 
any  nation  does  break  that  covenant,  they  will  use  all  the  forces 
at  their  disposal  against  that  nation  which  has  so  broken  it. 
Supposing  that  done,  1  think  more  use  can  be  made  of  the 
League  of  Nations  than  that.  There  is  work  for  it  to  do 
from  day  to  day  which  may  be  very  valuable.  I  do  not  see 
why  the  league  of  Nations,  once  formed,  should  necessarily 
be  idle.  I  do  not  see  why  it  should  not  arrange  for  an  authority 
and  an  international  force  at  its  disposal  which  should  act  as 
police  act  in  individual  countries.  It  sometimes  happens,  for 
instance,  when  a  wrong  is  done  for  which  some  backward  coun- 
try, very  often  a  small  backward  country,  will  not  give  redress. 
Its  government  perhaps  lacks  authority,  and  you  have  seen  from 
time  to  time  that  in  such  circumstance  a  stronger  nation  has  re- 
sorted to  force  and  seized  a  port  or  brought  some  other  pres- 
sure of  that  kind  to  bear.  And  then  you  had  the  jealousy  of 
other  nations  existing,  thinking  that  the  stronger  nation,  in 
seeking  redress,  is  in  some -way  pursuing  its  own  interests.  I 
think  these  cases  might  be  settled,  if  force  be  necessary,  by  a 
League  of  Nations  if  it  had  an  international  force  at  its  dis- 
posal, without  giving  rise  to  the  suspicions  and  jealousies  of 
certain  political  aims  being  pursued. 

Another  thing  it  may  do.  It  may  possibly  do  a  great  deal 
with  regard  to  labor.  I  think  labor  is  undoubtedly  going  to  take 
a  larger  and  more  prominent  share  in  the  governments  than  it 
has  done  before.  It  may  be  that  here,  as  elsewhere,  we  shall 
have  labor  governments.  Well,  now,  I  put  this  forward  only 
tentatively.  Labor  now  has  its  international  conferences,  but 
they  are  unofficial.  Is  it  not  possible  that  as  labor  takes  a  larger 
and  more  prominent  share  in  government  it  may  find  a  League 
of  Nations  useful  as  a  means  of  giving  a  more  official  character 
to  these  international  consultations  in  the  interest  of  labor  which 
independent  labor  has  already  encouraged  and  taken  so  much 
part  in? 

Then  I  would  give  you  another  suggestion,  and  it  is  the  last 
on  this  point.  There  are  countries  of  the  world,  independent 
nations,  but  more  loosely  organized,  or  for  one  reason  or  an- 


92  SELECTED    ARTICLES 

other  incapable  through  their  governments,  of  managing  their 
own  affairs  effectively  from  the  point  of  view  of  those  other 
more  highly  organized  countries  which  wish  to  trade  with  them, 
and  they  want  assistance  in  the  shape  of  officials  from  the  more 
highly  organized  countries.  A  great  example  of  that  is  the 
Maritime  Customs  Service  in  China,  formed  by  the  Chinese  Gov- 
ernment under  Sir  Robert  Hart,  and  working  as  an  international 
force,  I  believe,  with  the  approval  of  the  whole  world  in  the 
interest  of  China  and  of  the  world  generally.  Well,  that  was 
done — I  give  it  as  an  illustration — for  the  Chinese  Government, 
but  there  are  other  countries  in  the  world  where  that  sort  of 
thing  is  even  more  needed,  and  it  is  very  seldom  done  because  the 
weaker  country  which  needs  it  is  afraid  of  admitting  foreign 
officials,  for  fear  they  may  have  some  political  design  and  in- 
terest. It  is  discouraged  because  individual  countries  are  each 
jealous  of  one  another  getting  a  footing  in  some  of  these  more 
backward  countries,  through  officials.  But,  if  you  had  your 
League  of  Nations,  what  was  done  for  China  in  the  form  of  an 
International  Customs  Service,  to  the  benefit  of  China  and.  the 
whole  world,  might  be  done  in  other  countries  which  need  that 
sort  of  assistance.  What  has  prevented  it  being  done  is  the 
jealousy  the  stronger  States  have  of  one  another  and  the  fear  of 
the  weaker  nations  that  it  is  going  to  admit  political  influence 
and  sacrifice  independence.  But  if  this  were  done  on  the  author- 
ity of  a  League  of  Nations  there  would  be  much  less  chance 
of  these  jealousies,  and  much  less  chance  of  weaker  nations  being 
afraid  of  ulterior  designs,  and  the  trade  of  the  world  and  that  of 
individual  States  might  benefit  enormously  by  the  confidence 
with  which  that  assistance  could  be  given  if  given  under  a 
League  of  Nations  and  not  by  one  individual  country  or  group 
of  countries. 

Now,  surely,  if  the  peace  is  to  be  worthy  of  the  spirit  in 
which  those  lives  have  been  given,  it  must  not  merely  secure  na- 
tional and  material  interests;  it  must  give  something  wider  and 
bigger  and  better  and  higher  than  the  world  has  ever  had  before. 
Well,  what  good  can  we  do,  those  of  us  who  have  not  been  in 
the  fighting?  We  have  been  stirred,  I  suppose  all  of  us,  by  in- 
dividual cases  which  we  have  known  at  first  hand  of  the  spirit 
in  which  those  whom  we  loved  and  admired  have  fallen.  We 
must  do  our  best  to  live  up  to  the  spirit  in  which  they  gave 


A   LEAGUE   OF   NATIONS  93 

their  lives,  and  it  is  because  I  believe,  not  merely  in  the  actual 
use  of  the  machinery  of  the  League  of  Nations,  but  because  I 
believe  the  advocacy  of  it — the  spirit  which  it  requires — is  one 
which  will  take  international  relations  on  to  a  higher  and  better 
plane  than  ever  before;  because  I  believe  that  the  peace  will 
give  an  opportunity  such  as  the  world  has  never  had  before  of 
getting  international  relations  on  that  plane,  that  I  trust  that 
in  this  country  the  advocacy  of  the  League  of  Nations,  laid  down 
as  I  believe  it  has  been  on  the  soundest  lines  by  President  Wil- 
son, will  receive  that  measure  of  popular  opinion  and  support 
which  will  enable  the  governments  concerned,  who  can  do  noth- 
ing without  popular  opinion  behind  them,  to  carry  something  of 
that  sort  into  effect,  and  place  the  international  relations  of  the 
world,  as  far  as  we  are  concerned,  on  a  higher  plane  than  they 
have  ever  reached  before,  or  was  ever  possible  before. 


THE  LEAGUE  OF  NATIONS  1 

War  is  an  operation  of  the  social  instinct.  If  tragedy  is  the 
conflict  of  two  rights,  war  is  the  shock  of  two  social  organ- 
isms. It  is  the  ultimate  expression  of  the  solidarity  which  knits 
a  social  unit.  Of  the  social  units  which  we  call  national  states 
it  is  broadly  true  that  war  is  possible  between  them,  but  not 
within  them.  That  elementary  fact  must  be  our  clue  in  any  in- 
vestigation of  the  problem  of  a  durable  peace.  If,  by  the  crea- 
tion of  a  League  of  Nations,  we  mean  merely  that  the  external 
bond  of  a  treaty  of  arbitration  is  to  link  states,  which  retain 
their  old  individualism  and  their  traditions  of  nationalist  morals 
and  nationalist  economics,  it  would  be  folly  to  suppose  that  we 
can  abolish  war.  Theoretically,  the  only  security  seems  to  lie  in 
some  organic  international  association,  which,  by  the  creation  of 
intimate  and  pervasive  relationships  of  interdependence  within 
itself,  is  at  least  in  process  of  evolution  towards  the  ideal  of 
international  solidarity. 

There  is  certainly  no  warrant  in  history  for  the  assumption 
that  the  national  state,  or  even  the  composite  empire,  is  the  final 
form  of  the  social  unit,  which  alone  can  claim  our  loyalty  and 

1  From  "Foundations  of  Internationalism,"  prize  essay,  by  H.  N.  Brails- 
ford.     In  English  Review,  p.  87,  August,  19 18. 


94  SELECTED    ARTICLES 

subordinate  our  egoistic  strivings.  From  the  clan  to  the  empire 
the  social  unit  has  passed  through  many  phases  of  evolution  and 
expansion.  To  this  process  the  social  instinct  of  the  citizens 
has  adapted  itself  with  surprising  versatility.  In  the  nineteenth 
century  war  was  still  possible  between  the  States  of  disunited 
Germany  and  Italy.  To-day  the  sons  of  fathers  who  knew 
neither  Germany  nor  Italy  fight  for  the  larger  national  unit 
with  the  instinctive  passion  of  clansmen.  An  academic  demon- 
stration that  the  social  unit  is  elastic  and  the  social  instinct 
adaptable  will  not  carry  us  far  towards  our  goal.  The  dominat- 
ing fact  of  our  generation  in  world-politics  has  been  the  forma- 
tion of  a  new  type  of  association,  much  larger,  though  much 
looser  in  its  structure,  than  anything  that  endured  in  the  past. 
The  modern  alliance  is  incomparably  more  intimate  than  the 
dynastic  groupings  and  the  military  coalitions  of  the  past,  and 
promises  to  be  more  permanent.  The  two  groups  which  divided 
Europe  on  the  even  of  this  war  had  formed  the  habit  of  con- 
certed action  even  in  the  normal  operations  of  peace.  Austria 
was  Germany's  "brilliant  second"  in  every  diplomatic  exchange, 
and  France  expected,  without  always  receiving,  a  like  support 
from  Russia.  When  the  Dual  Alliance  became  the  Triple 
Entente,  British  finance  fell  into  line  and  shared  with  France 
the  risks  of  maintaining  the  financial  stability  of  Tsardom.  The 
fact  that  in  the  precarious  balance  of  pre-war  Europe  the  safety 
of  each  Power  might  depend  on  the  prosperity,  the  solvency, 
and  the  efficient  armament  of  its  allies  had  begun  to  blur,  though 
not  to  obliterate,  the  dividing  lines  of  national  egoism  and  sep- 
aratism. The  war  has  in  both  camps  carried  the  evolution  im- 
measurably further.  There  is  a  common  purse  while  the  war 
lasts;  there  is  even  in  our  combination  a  common  larder.  The 
rationing  among  the  Allies  of  essential  food  supplies  and  raw 
materials  implies  a  community  of  interest  that  is,  even  in  war,  a 
new  fact  in  international  life.  Pitt's  subsidies  were  only  a 
shadowy  anticipation  of  this  system.  It  is  already  recognized 
that  much  of  this  common  machinery  must  outlast  the  war. 

These  are  political  phenomena,  but  they  must  assuredly  have 
a  large  reaction  upon  economics.  On  the  whole,  it  was  broadly 
true  before  this  war  that  financiers  acted  by  preference  or 
necessity  in  national  groups.  There  were,  however,  interesting 
anticipatory  types  which  seemed  to  point  to  the  coming  interna- 


A   LEAGUE   OF  NATIONS  95 

tionalisation  of  some  of  the  more  highly  organised  forms  of 
production.  An  international  agreement  in  the  steel  trade  par- 
celled out  to  each  of  the  chief  national  industries  the  world- 
market  in  steel  rails.  It  needs  no  elaborate  argument  to  show 
that  the  rationing  of  raw  materials  after  the  war  by  the  Allies 
must  involve  an  understanding  not  merely  as  to  what  each  Ally 
requires  for  its  own  national  consumption,  but  also  an  under- 
standing as  to  the  export  trade  of  each  in  the  manufactured 
articles.  Within  each  group  of  Allies  commercial  rivalry  must 
diminish,  and  cooperation,  or  even  syndication,  tend  to  take  its 
place.  However  calculating  and  self-regarding  this  process  may 
be,  it  must  play  its  part  in  breaking  down,  at  least  in  the  upper 
world  of  industry  and  finance,  the  cruder  and  more  egoistic  as- 
sumptions  of  nationalist   economics. 

If  the  closer  organisation  as  permanent  military  and  economic 
alliances  of  these  two  groups  involves  within  them  some  develop- 
ment and  enlargement  of  the  social  consciousness,  it  also  carries 
with  it  a  challenge  and  menace  to  posterity.  While  these  two 
coalitions  survive,  every  war  must  needs  be  a  universal  war.  It 
wants  a  hardy  optimism  to  believe  that  after  a  sullen  peace  the 
equilibrium  between  these  two  supernational  groups  could  long 
be  stable.  Each  would  labour  to  detach  the  less  contented  and 
the  less  loyal  partners  of  the  rival  coalition.  An  active  contest 
would  proceed  between  them  for  the  allegiance  of  the  remaining 
neutrals.  Every  bitter  memory,  every  new  suspicion  would  give 
to  their  organised  rivalry  in  trade  the  passionate  colour  of  a 
political  contest.  No  promptings  of  economy  could  long  restrain 
the  inevitable  rivalry  in  armaments.  As  they  strove  for  the 
opening  of  closed  markets  and  for  access  to  raw  materials;  the 
will  to  prosper  and  live  would  drive  them,  as  soon  as  the  ravages 
of  this  war  were  repaired,  to  an  even  sharper  conflict  over  a 
more  elementary  issue.  A  decorous  truce,  a  bloodless  rivalry,  is 
barely  conceivable  if,  at  the  settlement  of  this  war,  two  un- 
reconciled coalitions  confront  each  other  with  a  programme  of 
economic  war.  We  shall  make  either  one  supernational  League 
or  two.    It  is  a  choice  between  war  and  peace. 

There  is  in  human  affairs  a  dialectic  by  which  evil  cures  it- 
self by  its  mere  excess.  National  strife  has  led  us  to  a  war  of 
coalitions.  Let  us  inquire  whether  the  dread  of  its  renewal  in 
a  still  more  terrible  form  can  impose  upon  us  the  immense 
achievement  of  constructing  a  single  League  of  Peace. 


96  SELECTED    ARTICLES 

We  have  seen  that  the  social  unit  is  itself  variable  and  elastic, 
and  there  are  indications  that  the  social  instinct  can  adapt  itself 
with  surprising  versatility  to  the  variations  of  this  unit.  This 
argument,  though  it  clears  away  some  preliminary  doubts,  is  far 
from  being  decisive.  We  have  still  to  cope  with  the  direct  and 
positive  tendencies  which  in  the  past  have  insisted  on  the  forci- 
ble settlement  of  disputes.  The  mind  of  Europe,  as  we  knew  it 
on  the  even  of  this  war,  was,  in  the  mass,  precisely  such  a  com- 
plex of  thwarted  impulses  and  half-successful  inhibitions  as 
Freud  and  his  school  have  studied  in  the  mental  life  of  the  in- 
dividual. Through  the  subconscious  life  of  most  European  na- 
tions there  ran  the  recurrent  motive  of  a  desire  for  some  or- 
ganic change,  some  international  readjustment,  which  was  hardly 
to  be  attained  in  the  world  as  we  knew  it  by  the  normal  proces- 
ses of  peace.  The  French  desire  for  the  revanche  and  the  lost 
provinces,  the  Serbian  passion  for  Jugo-Slav  unity,  the  Bulgarian 
craving  for  Macedonia,  and  Italian  Irredentism  are  the  more 
obvious  instances  of  these  restless  demands  for  change.  Add  to 
these  the  romantic  passion  of  the  Russian  Imperialist  for  Con- 
stantinople, and  the  sense  of  the  German  patriot  that  the  ex- 
tension of  his  Empire  overseas,  measured  relatively  by  that  of 
Britain  or  France,  was  far  from  corresponding  to  the  vigour 
of  his  national  organism,  its  population,  or  its  industrial  capac- 
ity, and  you  have  accumulated  fuel  enough  even  for  a  world- 
conflagration.  These  impulses  were  restrained  from  year  to 
year  and  from  decade  to  decade  by  prudence,  by  morals,  by  the 
fear  of  the  world's  public  opinion.  The  rigid  structure  of  our 
international  life  opposed  their  realisation.  Of  some  of  them 
(notably  the  Alsatian  and  South  Slav  questions)  we  may  say 
confidently  that  no  radical  solution  was  conceivable  without  war. 
Others,  and  especially  the  Colonial  questions,  were  capable  under 
favourable  conditions  of  a  pacific  settlement.  Even  so,  the  dis- 
putes which  turned  on  our  tenure  of  Egypt,  on  the  French  claim 
to  Morocco,  on  the  Anglo-Russian  rivalry  in  the  Middle  East, 
on  German  ambitions  in  Turkey  and  Africa  (as  the  Lichnowsky 
Memorandum  shows),  were  settled  only  after  prolonged  periods 
of  tension  and  some  narrow  escapes  from  war.  Even  in  these 
more  fortunate  instances  the  appeal  to  force  was  made,  though 
both  sides  recoiled  in  the  end,  after  the  dry  warfare  of  arma- 
ments,  from  the   actual   shedding  of  blood.     The  impulses   to 


A   LEAGUE   OF   NATIONS  97 

change,  which  made  no  formal  war,  were  none  the  less  active. 
They  worked  on  the  play  of  national  motive;  they  piled  up 
armaments;  they  forged  alliances.  Again,  and  yet  again,  such 
an  impulse  as  -the  French  desire  for  la  revanche,  though  it  made 
no  war,  availed  to  deflect  a  nation's  policy  from  the  course 
which  might  have  led  to  peace.  To  all  these  radical  impulses 
towards  war  the  Anglo-Saxon  peoples  are  strangers.  We  have 
no  unredeemed  kinsmen;  our  estate  in  the  world  is  ample;  we 
possess  all  that  force  might  win.  The  consequence  is  that  we 
are  apt  to  apply  to  the  problem  of  an  enduring  peace  a  set  of 
conceptions  essentially  conservative.  We  aim  too  exclusively  at 
security.  We  conceive  a  League  of  Peace  too  simply  as  an  or- 
ganisation which  will  stereotype  the  status  quo  and  repress  the 
disturber  of  the  established  order.  That  way  lies  stagnation 
and,  in  the  end,  the  inevitable  insurgence  of  living  forces  against 
this  death  in  life.  Change  is  a  biological  necessity.  The  damn- 
ing verdict  on  the  old  Europe  is  not  that  its  suppressed  impulses 
for  change  flamed  at  last  into  a  universal  war,  but  rather  that 
its  structure  was  so  rigid,  its  power  of  self-adjustment  so  lim- 
ited, that  save  through  war  no  radical  change  was  possible  within 
it. 

With  this  preface  it  is  possible  to  advance  to  a  closer  state- 
ment of  our  problem.  If  the  aim  of  a  League  of  Nations  be  to 
restrain  lawless  force  and  to  prevent  the  recurrence  of  such  a 
conflict  as  rages  to-day,  it  must  furnish  an  international  organ- 
isation which  can  ensure  that  timely  changes  shall  be  effected  in 
the  world  before  any  people  is  driven  by  an  intolerable  griev- 
ance, or  even  by  a  reasonable  ambition,  to  force  change  by  arms. 
That  definition  may  seem  remote  to  the  man  whose  aspirations 
are  limited  to  security.  Security  in  every  community,  however, 
is  purchased  only  by  a  constant  adaptability.  The  penalty  of 
rigidity  in  the  state  is  revolution,  as  in  the  world  of  States  it  is 
war.  The  architect  of  such  a  League  has  a  double  task  before 
him.  He  must  persuade  the  satisfied  and  conservative  Powers 
that  their  safety  depends  in  the  long  run  on  their  entry  into  a 
combination  which  must  impose  some  limits  on  their  sovereignty 
— limits,  it  is  true,  of  the  kind  which  every  permanent  Alliance 
exacts  to-day.  He  must  persuade  the  restless  and  ambitious 
Powers  that  the  structure  and  constitution  of  the  League  offer 
some  guarantee  that  their  aspirations,  in  so  far  as  they  can  be 


98  SELECTED    ARTICLES 

reconciled  with  the  common  good,  will  be  fairly  met.     He  will 
encounter  from  both  parties  an  obstinate  scepticism. 

The  Powers  which  regard  the  League  primarily  as  an  in- 
surance against  attack  will  riddle  the  defensive  basis  of  its 
covenant  with  doubt.  That  covenant,  however,  it  is  eventually 
drafted,  must  probably  provide  (i)  for  the  submission  of  all 
acute  international  disputes  to  the  appropriate  tribunal,  council, 
or  mediator  for  settlement;  (2)  for  a  suspense  of  all  warlike 
acts,  and  also  of  mobilisation,  until  the  supernational  authority 
has  published  its  finding,  and  for  some  time  thereafter;  (3)  for 
the  joint  action  of  all  the  signatory  Powers  to  repress,  any 
Government,  by  economic  and,  at  need,  by  military  coercion,  if 
it  should  violate  this  pact.  These  are  tremendous  undertakings. 
The  risk  is  twofold.  Some  Power  may  break  its  covenant,  and 
if  it  has  provided  itself  with  allies  the  conflict  which  results  will 
reproduce  the  present  strife  with  something  of  the  added  bitter- 
ness of  civil  war.  Again,  it  is  a  large  assumption  that  in  such  a 
case  all  the  innocent  Powers  would  keep  their  bond  and  rally  to 
the  defence  of  the  League  and  even  if  in  name  they  did  so, 
they  might  not  furnish  their  contingents  with  sufficient  gener- 
osity or  alacrity.  There  is  no  final  answer  to  these  doubts.  No 
human  institution  can  promise  to  work  with  mechanical  per- 
fection, and  life  would  lose  half  its  stimuli  if  all  danger  were 
eliminated.  The  practical  answer  to  this  scepticism  is,  sum- 
marily, that  on  no  terms  can  we  avoid  these  risks  and  that  any 
other  kind  of  insurance  reproduces  them  in  a  more  aggravated 
form.  The  man  who  declares  that  he  will  never  trust  the  signa- 
ture of  the  Power  which  violated  Belgium  to  any  covenant  what- 
ever must  be  invited  to  follow  two  simple  lines  of  thought.  In 
the  first  place,  the  Power  which  has  given  its  bond,  even  if  its 
repute  for  faith  stands  low,  has  some  obstacles  to  overcome  be- 
fore it  can  break  its  word,  which  would  be  absent  if  it  were 
unpledged.  With  some  resistance,  however  ineffective,  and  on 
some  reluctance  it  must  reckon  among  its  own  population,  and 
on  some  loss  of  prestige  it  must  count  beyond  its  frontiers.  In 
the  second  place,  so  far  from  assuming  that  every  Power  will 
spontaneously  keep  its  oath,  the  League  is  an  elaborate  system 
of  insurance  against  oath-breaking.  The  Entente's  combination 
was  built  upon  divers  motives  and  calculations,  in  some  cases  by 
painful  and  difficult  bargaining,  during  three  years  of  war,  by 


A   LEAGUE   OF   NATIONS  99 

the  gradual  adhesion  first  of  Italy,  then  of  Roumania,  and  lastly 
of  America.  The  League  will  be  ready,  without  these  delays 
and  without  bargainings,  to  act  unitedly  on  the  single  ground 
that  its  covenant  has  been  violated. 

The  sceptic  who  questions  whether  all  the  innocent  Powers 
would  fulfill  their  obligation  must  face  the  objection  that  an 
Alliance  itself  offers  no  absolute  security.  Two  late  Allies  of 
Germany  have  fought  against  her,  and  one  of  ours  has  quitted 
our  camp.  "Treaties,"  as  Lord  Salisbury  said,  "are  mortal" ; 
and  the  only  inventions  which  the  wisdom  of  the  past  had  erected 
as  a  security  against  war  have  ceased  to  be  even  plausible  illu- 
sions. Alliances  give  no  absolute  security.  The  Balance  of 
Power  resembles  the  flux  of  Heraclitus.  There  is  only  one 
thing  which  may  always  with  safety  be  affirmed  of  it:  it  oscil- 
lates. Nor  should  we,  if  we  could  carve  frontiers,  annex  naval 
bases,  and  dominate  straits  at  our  good  pleasure,  be  nearer  to 
absolute  safety.  Invention  laughs  at  strategical  locksmiths.  The 
Power  which  had  secured  itself  on  the  face  of  the  waters 
discovered  that  its  peril  lay  below  them.  If  that  danger  could 
be  conjured  away  we  should  waken  to  find  that  our  precautions 
had  forgotten  the  resources  of  the  air.  There  is,  in  short,  no 
substitute  for  a  League  of  Nations  which  is  immune  from  risks. 
This,  however,  one  may  say:  the  Partial  Alliance  challenges  and 
provokes  the  danger  of  war.  It  makes  the  risk,  because  by  its 
constant  and  costly  provision  against  it,  it  assumes  the  probabil- 
ity of  war  as  the  central  fact  of  international  life.  It  allows 
the  thinking  of  mankind  to  start  from  the  reckoning  that  war  is 
inevitable,  and  it  is  not  surprising  that  the  passions  of  men  pro- 
ceed to  verify  the  prediction  which  treaties  and  armaments 
steadily  proclaim.  A  League  of  Nations  will  start  from  the 
contrary  assumption.  It  will  proclaim  that  law  is  the  rule  and 
crime  the  exception.  When  that  belief  is  embodied  in  institu- 
tions, the  thinking  of  mankind  will  adapt  itself  to  the  new  order. 

The  objections  which  will  come  from  the  more  adventurous 
Powers,  whose  interest  lies  in  future  change,  may  be  somewhat 
harder  to  meet.  The  League's  architect  must  satisfy  them  not 
merely  that  they  will  receive  fair  and  considerate  treatment  in 
its  courts  and  councils,  but  also  that  when  an  award  or  recom- 
mendation is  published  there  will  be  a  reasonable  probability 
that  it  will  be  executed.     The  standard  schemes  of  the  League 


ioo  SELECTED    ARTICLES 

do  not  propose  to  make  the  enforcement  of  these  awards  ob- 
ligatory on  the  League.  That  is  probably  a  wise  limitation,  but 
the  League  would  promptly  dissolve  unless,  with  or  without  a 
formal  undertaking,  it  contrived  in  clear,  and  grave  and  urgent 
cases  that  the  decisions  of  its  Courts  and  Councils  should  be 
respected.  There  is  probably  little  difficulty  about  justiceable 
disputes,  which  can  be  referred  to  decision  by  a  court  following 
recognised  principles  of  law.  The  more  speculative  and  doubtful 
aspect  of  the  League  opens  out,  when  we  reflect  that  the  dis- 
putes which  commonly  lead  to  war,  turn  on  issues  neither  of 
fact  nor  of  law,  and  can  be  settled  only  by  an  application  of 
current  standards  of  policy  and  morals,  which  vary  from  gen- 
eration to  generation,  and  which  no  two  peoples  would  define  in 
the  same  terms.  Can  a  Council  of  Conciliation  be  composed 
which  will  not  merely  be  free  from  prejudice  and  bias,  but  will 
command  an  authority  so  great  that  both  disputants  will  bow  to 
it?  Let  us  assume  that  it  will  not  attempt  to  impose  ideal  jus- 
tice— ideal  justice  is  a  moral  dynamite  which  would  wreck  any 
human  society — but  will  suggest  rather  compromise  solutions 
which  will  ease  acute  disputes.  Even  so,  it  is  evident  that  such 
a  Council  can  neither  be  set  up,  nor  trusted,  nor  obeyed,  save 
upon  one  general  condition:  that  there  is  a  measure  of  con- 
fidence and  good  will  among  all  the  more  influential  Powers 
when  the  League  is  created.  That  condition  is  at  the  lowest  so 
difficult  that  one  must  beware  of  overstating  it.  It  need  imply  no 
sentimental  reconciliation,  no  evangelical  readiness  to  love  one's 
enemy.  It  means  primarily  this:  that  all  the  leading  Powers 
should  be  so  convinced  of  the  necessity  for  a  League  that  they 
will  make  concessions  to  ensure  its  smooth  working.  Not  senti- 
ment, but  the  effective  will  to  make  a  workable  League  is  the 
first  condition  of  its  creation.  Should  we  make  the  League,  we 
are  realists  enough  to  perceive  that  it  would  fail  if  a  Power  so 
considerable  as  Germany  had  reason  to  feel  that  she  met  with 
less  than  justice  within  it.  Needless  to  say,  the  necessity  for  a 
like  spirit  of  concession  from  her  would  be  equally  imperative. 
Without  minimising  the  importance  of  questions  of  mechanism 
in  devising  the  League,  it  is  on  the  ability  to  create  an  at- 
mosphere of  confidence  that  its  future  depends. 


A    LEAGUE    OF    NATIONS  :  ;,>  {  }],}     id 


THE   LEAGUE   OF    FREE   NATIONS1 

The  time  has  arrived  when  it  is  possible  to  take  stock  of  the 
accumulating  mass  of  suggestions  centering  about  the  phrase  the 
League  of  Nations.  It  is  a  phrase  often  very  loosely  used  and 
often  very  recklessly  abused.  It  must  be  confessed  that  to  begin 
with  it  conveyed  to  most  minds  rather  an  aspiration  than  any 
detailed  content.  It  was  little  more  than  the  expression  of  a  de- 
sire for  some  organized  attempt  to  end  war  in  the  world;  in 
some  manner  the  states  of  the  world  were  to  come  together  in  a 
more  or  less  binding  pledge  to  substitute  law  for  force  in  their 
interaction.  Thereby  men's  minds  were  to  be  released  from  the 
growing  obsession  with  militarism  and  their  energies  released 
for  better  ends  than  warfare.  But  beyond  that  nothing  was 
clear. 

Within  the  frame  supplied  by  this  phrase,  however,  an  enor- 
mous amount  of  mental  activity  has  gone  on,  and  much  that  was 
entirely  vague  has  now  been  thought  out.  This  war  has  forced 
upon  men  of  the  most  diverse  types  and  experiences  a  common 
conviction  that  the  increasing  range,  destructiveness  and  in- 
clusiveness  of  modern  belligerence  threaten  to  exhaust  the  re- 
sources of  mankind  and  destroy  human  society;  and  what  was  at 
first  the  suggestion  of  a  few  intellectuals  has  become  the  basis 
for  a  series  of  weighed  and  balanced  practical  proposals,  made 
not  as  Utopian  improvements  of  human  conditions  but  as  plain 
necessities  arising  out  of  an  otherwise  intolerable  situation. 

We  have,  in  the  last  four  years,  found  out  the  real  nature  of 
modern  war.  The  struggle  has  differed  from  warfare  as  man- 
kind has  hitherto  known  it.  It  has  become  a  more  onerous  and 
unstable  process,  a  struggle  of  uncontrollable  inventions  that 
makes  insatiable  demands  upon  every  human  resource.  It  has 
rapidly  abolished  nearly  every  discrimination  between  combatant 
and  noncombatant,  and  it  refuses  to  tolerate  any  other  activity 
than  itself.  Everything  goes  in.  It  has  ceased  to  be  a  war  of 
fronts  and  become  a  war  of  whole  populations;  the  submarine 
defies  blockades  and  the  command  of  the  sea;  the  aeroplane 
grows  not  only  in  size  and  destructive  power  but  in  range  of 

1  By  H.  G.  Wells.  Saturday  Evening  Post.  191:10,  52.  November 
23,   1918. 


i02  SELECTED   ARTICLES 

action.  And  withal,  the  new  warfare  remains  less  conclusive 
than  any  warfare  has  been  for  long  periods  of  time.  Continually 
it  produces  new  and  more  costly  and  destructive  weapons  and 
renders  wider  areas  uninhabitable. 

When  this  war  concludes,  unless  it  concludes  in  some  ab- 
solutely convincing  world  pacification,  it  is  manifest  that  there 
will  have  to  be  added  to  the  army  and  navy  of  our  former 
ideas,  and  kept  always  in  a  state  of  acute  preparedness,  a  vast 
air  fleet,  a  vast  antiaircraft  equipment,  a  vast  extension  of  the 
navy  for  submarine  and  antisubmarine  work,  a  huge,  constantly 
developing  tank  force,  a  drilled  population,  and  a  huge  estab- 
lishment of  war  factories.  We  shall,  indeed,  be  eaten  up  by 
armaments  compared  with  which  the  armaments  of  1913  will 
seem  trivial  miniatures. 

Peace  under  insecure  conditions,  even  if  it  brings  a  certain 
cessation  of  the  slaughter,  will  bring  but  little  relief  of  the  bur- 
dens of  armament.  The  masses  will  be  called  upon  to  bear  these 
burdens  still,  without  any  of  the  stir  and  excitement  of  actual 
war  or  any  hope  of  an  end.  Men  of  the  laboring  class,  no 
longer  under  military  discipline,  will  be  packed  in  armament 
factories,  engaged  upon  the  endless  tasks  of  preparedness.  Food 
and  every  amenity  of  life  will  remain,  as  now,  the  skimped  pro- 
duction of  a  fringe  of  inferior  workers.  Prices  will  continue  to 
soar  above  wages. 

Few  observant  people  believe  that  labor  will  stand  the  new 
armed  peace  for  long  in  any  country  of  the  world ;  and  Russia 
has  shown  what  may  happen  to  a  population  strained  beyond  its 
breaking  point.  When  a  government  goes,  another  government 
may  take  its  place,  but  when  a  social  system  breaks,  it  is  a  stam- 
pede. 

The  nature  of  the  prospect  grows  so  clear  that  intelligent 
men  of  every  party  and  every  type  of  social  prepossession  are 
coming  together  upon  this  fundamental  necessity  of  putting  an 
end  to  war  and  the  threat  of  war.  There  is  no  party  in  the 
political  world  that  has  not  given  prominent  adherents  now  to 
the  league-of-nations  idea. 

With  this  irruption  into  the  league-of-nations  movement  of 
practical  men  convinced  of  the  grave  need  of  a  real  efficient 
check  on  war,  there  has  been,  one  must  admit,  a  considerable 
strain  upon  the  exact  intimations  of  the  title.     From  the  outset 


A    LEAGUE    OF    NATIONS  103 

there  has  been  a  very  understandable  disposition  to  contemplate 
it  as  not  strictly  a  league  of  nations  but  as  a  league  of  states; 
and  the  word  "league"  is  now  being  strained  very  hard  indeed 
in  the  direction  of  federation.  A  league  implies  that  sovereignty 
is  not  infringed;  but  clear-headed  men  began  to  realize  quite 
early  in  the  discussion  that  there  can  be  no  such  thing  as  a  se- 
cure and  permanent  world  peace  without  very  considerable 
qualifications  of  sovereignty. 

President  Wilson  again  has  introduced  a  whole  new  set  of 
considerations  by  inserting  the  adjective  "free"  before  "nations." 
At  the  present  time  it  is  possible  to  classify  the  advocates  of  a 
league  .of  nations  into  a  number  of  groups  differing  very  ma- 
terially among  themselves  and  agreeing  exactly,  indeed,  only 
upon  one  idea — the  initial  proposition  that  it  is  a  possible  and 
necessary  thing  to  restrain  war  by  an  international  arrange- 
ment. Most  of  them  agree  that  it  is  likely  to  prove  an  extraor- 
dinarily difficult  thing  to  do;  but  they  can  see  no  alternative  to 
the  attempt  but  a  fatalistic  submission  to  the  complete  wreckage 
of  our  present  civilization. 

Roughly  one  may  arrange  league-of-nations  proposals,  as  they 
are  to  be  encountered  at  the  present  time,  into  a  series  between 
two  extreme  positions. 

On  the  extreme  left  is  what  is  practically  a  defeatist  pro- 
posal, a  mere  rehabilitation  of  The  Hague  Tribunal.  It  is  a 
timid  scheme  for  delay  and  arbitration;  some  sort  of  interna- 
tional conference  is  to  meet  occasionally;  there  are  to  be  a 
supreme  court  and  a  court  of  conciliation — the  former  to  try 
disputes  upon  points  of  international  law,  the  latter  to  discuss 
nonjusticiable  differences. 

No  interference  with  the  political  constitution  or  internal  ar- 
rangements of  any  state  is  contemplated;  no  organized  dis- 
armament and  control  of  militarism  can  therefore  occur.  Ger- 
many, undefeated  and  unregenerate,  will,  for  instance,  be  ad- 
mitted to  such  a  league  on  the  expression  of  a  few  pious  senti- 
ments. 

This  is  the  scope  of  the  American  scheme  of  Mr.  Theodore 
Marburg;  and  it  has  the  support  in  England  of  such  extreme 
radicals  as  Mr.  Lowes  Dickinson — if  we  may  call  men  radicals 
who  shrink  from  revolution.  We  may  call  these  extremists  the 
weak  leaguers,  and  their  proposal  the  Weak  League  of  Nations. 


104  SELECTED   ARTICLES 

Nothing  could  be  more  acceptable  to  German  imperialism,  under 
a  cloud,  than  the  schemes  they  put  forward.  Such  a  league  of 
nations  would  have  about  as  much,  effect  upon  Hohenzollern 
Germany  as  a  blue  neck  ribbon  upon  the  aims  and  activities  of 
a  tiger.  But  the  common  sense  of  practical  men  breaks  away 
from  this  proposal  to  keep  the  peace  by  gossamer.  It  breaks 
away  in  two  directions,  which  are  not  nearly  so  opposed  as  one 
may  think  at  the  first  glance.  One  is  to  reject  and  abuse  the 
idea  of  a  league  of  nations  on  the  assumption  that  the  Marburg 
scheme  exhausts  its  possibilities — compare  ex-President  Roose- 
velt; the  other  is  to  put  more  substance  into  the  proposal.  Few 
of  us  desire  to  see,  as  a  principal  outcome  of  this  world  catastro- 
phe, a  collection  of  eminent  jurists  at  The  Hague  making  nerv- 
ous gestures  at  the  forces  that  will  prepare  the  next. 

What  most  sensible  people  desire  is  either  a  strong  league  of 
nations  or  no  league  of  nations  at  all.  If  the  beast  of  modern 
war  is  to  be  chained  it  must  have  a  chain  to  hold  it  and  not  a 
packthread.  The  whole  drift  of  recent  discussion  of  the  league 
of  nations  lies  in  the  direction  of  estimating  what  weight  of 
chain  is  absolutely  necessary,  and  what  we  must  do  to  get  that 
chain. 

For  most  of  those  who  have  recently  come  into  the  move- 
ment, it  is  not  a  question  of  whether  we  will  have  a  world  league 
or  not,  but  what  price  in  change,  effort  and  independence  we 
shall  have  to  pay  for  it.  A  restoration  of  the  crazy  political 
world  order  of  1914,  of  a  patchwork  of  absolutely  independent 
sovereign  empires,  competitive,  disingenuous  and  suspicious — 
and  so  compelled  to  be  armed  to  the  teeth,  uncontrolled  by  any 
general  understanding — is,  in  view  of  the  steady  development  of 
the  means  of  destruction,  the  one  prospect  we  cannot  endure. 

Directly  the  idea  of  the  league  of  nations  is  released  from 
the  limitation  imposed  upon  it  by  the  jurists — that  it  has  to  meet 
with  the  approval  of  a  Hohenzollern-governed  Germany — it  be- 
gins to  expand  mightily  in  our  minds.  It  begins  to  take  on  a 
form  and  an  elaboration  commensurate  with  the  scale  of  the 
war.  Instead  of  being  a  mere  delaying  intervention  and  remon- 
strance, upon  the  eve  of  war,  of  a  respectable  but  powerless 
assembly  of  jurists,  it  enlarges  into  a  project  for  a  world  control 
of  the  preparation  for  war  and  for  a  world  anticipation  of  its 
causes.     It  becomes  a  scheme  for  a  new  political  order  in  the 


A    LEAGUE    OF    NATIONS  105 

world.  To  talk  of  love  is  to  make  love,  the  wise  have  said;  still 
truer  is  it  that  to  organize  armies  is  to  make  war. 

If  the  league  of  nations  is  to  be  a  reality  in  the  days  to  come 
it  must  have  sufficient  authority  and  power  to  inquire  into,  re- 
strain and  suppress  armaments  on  land  and  sea,  wherever  and 
whenever  any  country  in  the  world  gets  bitten  with  the  passion 
for  armament.  That  proposition  carries  with  it  tremendous 
corollaries ;  but  if  the  league  of  nations  is  not  to  be  conceived 
of  as  upon  that  scale,  then  most  sensible  men  will  give  the  league 
of  nations  a  very  limited  and  temperate  or  else  an  acutely  sus- 
picious attention. 

A  world  control  of  armaments  implies — and  there  is  no  good 
whatever  in  shirking  the  fact — some  sort  of  world  council,  some 
sort  of  pooling  of  the  naval,  military  and  air  forces  of  the 
world  under  that  council,  and  a  representation  of  the  states  of 
the  world  thereon  in  a  manner  commensurate  with  their  strength 
and  will.  This  is  going  beyond  a  league ;  this  is  an  approach  to 
world  federation. 

Mr.  Belloc  declares  it  amounts  to  a  World  State,  and  the 
Fabian  Research  Committee,  in  its  league-of-nations  project, 
calls  it,  in  the  shavian  jargon  affected  by  that  society,  a  Super- 
state. But  the  discussion  of  the  relations  between  a  central  con- 
trol with  delegated  powers  on  the  one  hand  and  of  sovereign 
states  thereunder  on  the  other  has  been  one  of  the  chief  em- 
ployments of  American  publicists  for  more  than  a  century;  and 
a  European  writer  should  go  warily  among  terms  they  have 
long  since  technicalized  and  brought  to  a  very  keen  and  cutting 
edge. 

The  practical  man  is  far  less  interested  in  the  exact  legal 
and  terminological  value  of  this  council  or  standing  conference 
or  group  of  committees — or  whatever  the  exact  form  of  world 
control  may  be  to  which  the  plain  logic  of  human  necessity  is 
driving  mankind — than  in  the  way  that  control  will  work,  the 
powers  it  must  have,  and  the  means  by  which  it  will  keep  itself 
in  touch  with  the  general  consciousness  of  the  people  of  the 
world. 

The  present  war  has  made  nothing  more  manifest  than  that 
the  effective  control  of  militarism  must  extend  to  issues  that  are 
not  in  themselves  military.  The  development  of  war,  as  I  have 
already  pointed  out,  has  been  steadily  abolishing  the  noncom- 


106  SELECTED   ARTICLES 

batant;  modern  war  is  a  struggle  of  whole  populations,  fighting 
with  all  their  industrial  and  economic  strength,  and  an  effective 
world  control  of  food  supplies  and  of  the  supplies  of  staple 
articles  generally — of  coal,  iron,  and  the  like. 

Moreover,  a  world  control  of  war  implies  a  world  control 
of  the  causes  of  war.  Modern  wars,  it  has  been  said,  are  in- 
variably economic;  they  are  struggles  for  markets  and  raw 
material.  And  it  is  evident,  therefore,  that  a  world  control  of 
militarism  which  does  not  provide  some  substitute  for  war  set- 
tlements upon  these  questions  will  be  no  better  than  restraining 
a  suffocating  man  from  smashing  a  window  that  gives  upon 
fresh  air. 

A  world  control  of  militarism  will  lead,  it  will  be  found,  to 
a  world  control  of  shipping  and  of  the  world  distribution  of 
staples ;  to  restraint  upon  tariff  wars ;  and,  indeed,  to  a  general 
control  of  international  trade.  This  is  a  large  order,  both  for 
the  free  trader  and  the  tariff  reformer ;  but  it  is  a  necessary 
part  of  any  scheme  for  an  effective  control  of  war. 

The  experience  of  the  Allies  confirms  this  proposition.  It  has 
been  asserted  again  and  again  that  even  now  a  league  of  nations 
exists  in  the  alliance  against  the  Central  Powers.  But  the  steady 
pressure  of  necessity  has  already  carried  the  Allies  beyond  the 
mere  League  stage,  and  it  must  ultimately  take  them  beyond 
mere  exclusive  dealing  with  their  allies.  The  attainment  of  a 
unity  of  military  command  has  been  accompanied  by  a  progres- 
sive pooling  of  interests  and  resources,  less  conspicuous  per- 
haps, but  more  significant. 

In  matters  of  food,  coal,  metals  and  shipping  the  Allies  have 
been  forced  to  scrap,  first  in  this  instance  and  then  in  that,  the 
idea  that  they  were  separate  competing  entities. 

America  goes  easy  with  the  bacon  that  England  may  be  fed, 
and  England  will  shiver  this  winter  that  Italy  may  not  be  frozen 
out  of  the  alliance. 

Though  the  faint-hearted  gentlemen  of  the  Weak  League  of 
Nations  movements  are  assuring  us  that  the  nations  of  the 
earth  are  far  too  jealous  to  tolerate  the  slightest  infringements 
of  their  sovereign  rights,  these  poolings  are  going  on  upon  a 
tremendous  scale.  When  at  last  the  German  mind  is  attuned  to 
revolutionary  ideas  and  the  Hohenzollern  incubus  is  set  aside,  so 
that  a  chastened  Germany  can  come  to  the  peace  conference,  it 


A    LEAGUE    OF    NATIONS  107 

is  inevitable  that  these  pooling  organizations  must  assume  a 
practically  world-wide  scope. 

However  much  Englishmen  may  dislike  Germans,  they  must 
get  back  to  some  momentary  footing  in  common,  even  if  it  is 
only  to  secure  the  economic  reinstatement  of  Belgium.  There 
must  be  some  restraint  upon  a  desperate  and  planless  resump- 
tion of  industrial  competition.  There  must  be  no  scramble  for 
food.  These  are  matters  that  will  not  be  settled  in  a  few  weeks 
or  months. 

It  is  natural  to  look  to  such  committees  of  world  control 
that  will  necessarily  be  formed  at  the  peace  conference  to  restore 
the  shattered  financial  and  economic  order,  as  bodies  that  may 
be  given  permanence  by  treaty,  that  may  be  supplemented  by 
permanent  world  committees  to  deal  with  health,  navigation, 
emigration,  and  other  general  purposes,  to  form  the  civil  ad- 
ministrative side  of  a  world  league. 

The  creation  of  a  general  sense  of  the  world  league  in  men's 
minds  through  propaganda  and  education,  and  its  embodiment 
in  political  forms,  may,  indeed,  be  rather  the  culmination  and 
recognition  of  a  process  of  human  unification  already  in  full 
progress  than  a  real  new  departure  in  human  affairs. 

From  being  a  proposed  addendum  to  human  life,  in  the  form 
of  a  court  of  jurists,  the  league  of  nations  has  now  become  the 
outline  of  a  broad  and  hopeful  scheme  for  the  reconstruction  of 
international  relationships  upon  a  sound  and  enduring  basis.  It 
is  a  new  world  policy.  It  is  a  scheme  that  may  inaugurate  a 
new  and  happier  phase  in  the  troubled  history  of  mankind.  But 
at  every  step  it  demands  sacrifices  of  prepossessions. 

There  is  no  good  in  clinging  to  ideals  of  a  world  of  unre- 
stricted free  trade  and  laissez  faire  if  the  world  controls  of  the 
league  of  nations  are  to  come  into  existence;  it  is  equally  un- 
reasonable to  dream  of  schemes  of  a  self-contained  British  Em- 
pire, taxing  the  foreigner  and  economically  hostile  to  all  for- 
eigners, including  those  of  France,  Italy  and  the  United  States. 

We  must  cease  to  think  imperially  as  we  have  had  to  cease 
thinking  parochially;  and  we  must  think  now  in  terms  of  the 
peace  of  the  world.  The  league  of  nations  points  straight  to  a 
pooling  of  empires,  and  it  is  no  good  blinking  the  fact.  And, 
since  it  cannot  operate  in  an  atmosphere  tainted  by  suspicion, 


108  SELECTED   ARTICLES 

the  league  of  nations  demands  for  its  effective  operation  a 
change  in  our  diplomatic  methods. 

The  world  has  become  too  multitudinous  for  secret  under- 
standings. In  this  swarming  world  of  half-taught  crowds,  with 
its  imminent  danger  from  class  hostility  and  distrust,  govern- 
ments must  say  plainly  what  they  mean  and  stand  by  their 
declarations  unambiguously. 

It  may  at  times  be  difficult  and  tedious  to  inform  a  whole 
population  upon  the  values  of  some  international  situation,  but 
the  danger  of  misconception  and  spasmodic  crowd  action  out- 
weighs the  desire  of  the  expert  for  an  uncriticized  freedom. 
There  must  be  an  end  to  secret  diplomacy.  Nations  must  un- 
derstand their  responsibilities.     . 

The  welfare  of  the  world  requires  that  the  very  children  in 
the  schools  should  be  taught  the  broad  outlines  of  the  treaties 
that  bind  their  nations  into  the  mosaic  of  the  world's  peace. 
They  have  to  grow  up  understanding  and  consenting,  if  only  on 
account  of  the  grim  alternative  the  precedent  of  Russia  suggests. 


A   LEAGUE  OF  NATIONS1 

A  League  of  Nations  provides  an  instrument  and  a  basis 
for  international  co-operation  which  did  not  exist  under  pre- 
war diplomatic  conditions.  International  relations  in  the  last 
century  were  continually  jeopardised  by  the  absence  of  an 
adequate  guarantee  for  international  agreements  and  of  a 
centre  for  the  unification  and  co-ordination  of  international 
action.  By  constituting  the  League  the  world  would  for  the 
first  time  have  taken  a  real  step  towards  supplying  these 
deficiencies.  We  propose  to  prove  these  statements  by  con- 
sidering certain  particular  instances  of  a  political  and  eco- 
nomic nature.  One  of  the  most  important  of  these  is  the  inter- 
national economic  right  of  way. 

The  result  of  the  revolution  in  industry  and  means  of 
communication  in  the  last  century  was  that  to-day  there  is 
hardly  a  single  international  question  of  importance  which 
is  not  complicated  seriously  by  economic  considerations.     The 

1  New  Statesman.  9:367-9,  392-3,  416-18,  440-1,  464-6,  July  14-August 
18,  1917. 


A    LEAGUE    OF    NATIONS  109 

economic  lines  of  communication,  whether  on  land  or  sea, 
have  become  increasingly  "vital"  to  the  material  existence  of 
the  majority  of  states.  After  all,  the  war  itself  has  shown 
this  with  appalling  clearness,  for  whereas  the  strategy  of 
previous  wars  was  directed  mainly  to  the  cutting  of  military 
lines  of  communication,  the  present  combatants  have  settled 
down  to  a  bitter  struggle  to  cut  the  economic  lines.  Now 
war  only  illuminates,  it  does  not  create,  the  international 
forces  and  conditions  of  this  kind  which  continue  to  operate 
in  times  of  peace.  On  the  Danube  and  the  Rhine  and  the 
Scheldt;  on  the  railways  of  Austria  and  Hungary,  of  the 
Balkans,  of  Asia  Minor,  of  East  and  West  Prussia,  even  of 
tropical  Africa;  in  obscure  bays  and  harbours  of  the  Medi- 
terranean, Africa,  Asia,  and  South  America,  political  and 
geographical  boundaries  have  combined  with  modern  commerce 
to  raise  the  most  acute  questions  which  may  be  conveniently 
classified  as  questions  of  economic  rights  of  way. 

The  general  character  of  all  these  problems  is  the  same, 
and  can  be  stated  shortly.  The  geographical  and  political 
position  of  one  state  can  be  used  as  a  tremendous  weapon 
economically  against  another's  commercial  lines  of  commu- 
nication with  the  outside  world.  This  can  be  and  is  achieved 
by  a  variety  of  methods :  by  tariffs,  by  manipulation  and  dis- 
crimination of  railway  freights,  by  administrative  regulations 
as  to  the  entrance  and  transit  of  commodities,  by  tolls  and 
dues  on  river  navigation,  by  harbour  dues  and  duties,  even 
by  sanitary  regulations.  How  widespread  and  how  dangerous 
for  the  world's  peace  and  progress  these  questions  are  may 
best  be  shown  by  some  examples.  The  free  navigation  of 
rivers  was  the  earliest  of  these  questions  which  engaged 
the  attention  of  foreign  policy.  It  is  the  most  obvious  in- 
stance of  a  question  of  economic  right  of  way.  A  riparian 
state  which  commands  the  mouth  of  a  navigable  river  can 
close  the  economic  route  to  the  sea  for  all  states  along  the 
higher  reaches  either  by  exorbitant  navigation  dues  or  by 
allowing  the  river  to  become  unnavigable.  The  matter  has 
forced  itself  upon  the  attention  of  statesmen  in  many  dif- 
ferent parts  of  the  world,  but  particularly  upon  the  Danube, 
the  Scheldt,  the  Rhine,  the  Vistula  and  the  Congo.  In  fact, 
the   last   century   saw   the   principle   of   an    economic   right   of 


no  SELECTED   ARTICLES 

way  on  navigable  rivers  established  for  a  particular  case  by 
the  Treaty  of  Vienna  and  gradually  extended  to  nearly  all 
the  navigable  rivers  of  the  world.  The  control  of  narrow 
straits  or  of  inter-oceanic  canals  produces  cases  of  precisely 
the  same  nature  as  that  of  navigable  rivers.  Thus  the  ques- 
tion of  Constantinople  derives  its  international  importance 
from  the  fact  that  the  political  control  of  the  Straits  vitally 
affects  the  economic  communications  of  Russia  and  Rumania. 
Again,  the  problems  raised  by  the  Suez  and  Panama  Canals 
and  their  political  control  have  differed  from  that  of  Con- 
stantinople not  in  kind  but  only  in  degree. 

Railway  communications  produce  international  problems  of 
the  same  nature.  The  whole  Balkan  question  has  been  compli- 
cated and  embittered  by  conflicting  attempts  to  bar  and  to  open 
economic  rights  of  way.  This  is  perhaps  most  obvious  in  the 
relations  of  Austria  and  Serbia.  The  "economic  dependence" 
of  Serbia  and  Austria,  of  which  so  much  has  been  written, 
comes  from  the  power  which  her  geographical  position  con- 
fers upon  Austria  of  controlling  the  entrance  and  exit  of 
commodities  to  and  from  Serbia. 

So  universal  are  these  political  and  economic  forces  that 
if  we  look  across  the  world  to  another  continent,  we  see  the 
same  causes  producing  similar  problems.  In  South  America, 
Argentina  to-day  controls,  and  Argentina  and  Brazil  will 
to-morrow  control,  the  economic  communications  of  the  Re- 
public of  Paraguay  with  the  Atlantic  and  Europe,  and  this 
circumstance  had  produced  an  international  situation  which 
is  similar  and  is  subject  to  the  same  treatment  as  that  in  the 
Balkans. 

The  conditions  which  we  have  been  considering  have  in 
the  past  been  one  of  the  most  prolific  causes  of  "international 
unrest."  They  have  been  at  once  the  cause  and  the  weapon 
of  the  bitterest  international  hostility.  In  Constantinople,  Bel- 
grade, Vienna,  Berlin,  and  in  Africa,  rivers  and  railways 
have  again  and  again  served  as  a  kind  of  conducting  wire  of 
fear  and  suspicion,  and  illicit  international  ambitions.  And 
as  the  world  becomes  more  and  more  completely  industrial- 
ized, so  will  these  questions  of  economic  communications 
become  more  and  more  vital  arid  dangerous.  There  can  be 
no  peace  in  the  world  if  half  the  nations  live  in  fear  of  the 


A    LEAGUE    OF    NATIONS  in 

arteries  of  their  commerce  being  cut  or  obstructed,  while  the 
other  half  are  occupied  with  plotting  and  planning  to  cut  and 
obstruct  them. 

Moreover,  as  the  case  of  Poland  will  show,  as  long  as  this 
problem  remains  unsolved,  it  is  impossible  to  reconstruct 
Europe  politically  and  nationally  on  a  just  or  sound  basis. 
The  whole  problem  can,  of  course,  only  be  solved  if  co- 
operation takes  the  place  of  hostility  and  rivalry  in  international 
relations.  But  in  conditions  so  complex  as  those  of  international 
relations,  co-operation  will  never  persist  unless  the  broad  prin- 
ciples of  international  action  are  definitely  formulated  and  means 
of  putting  the  principles  into  action  are  consciously  provided. 

A  League  of  Nations  alone  would  provide  such  means. 
*********** 

If  in  future  even  a  moderate  amount  of  co-operation  is  to 
take  the  place  of  hostility  and  aggression  in  international 
relations,  the  principle  of  the  complete  freedom  of  economic 
rights  of  way  must  be  recognized  and  enforced.  This  has 
already  to  a  great  extent  been  recognised  by  one  important  and 
practical  statesman.  President  Wilson  has  stated  as  one  of 
the  chief  conditions  of  a  just  and  stable  peace  the  principle 
that  "so  far  as  practicable,  every  great  people  now  struggling 
towards  a  full  development  of  its  resources  and  of  its  powers 
should  be  assured  a  direct  outlet  to  the  great  highways  of 
the  sea."  And  he  went  on  to  lay  down  this  principle  of 
policy,  that  "where  this  (the  assurance  of  a  right  of  way  to 
the  sea)  cannot  be  done  by  the  cession  of  territory,  it  no 
doubt  can  be  done  by  the  neutralisation  of  direct  rights  of 
way  under  the  general  guarantee  which  will  assure  the  peace 
itself.  With  a  right  of  comity  of  arrangement  no  nation  need 
be  shut  away  from  free  access  to  the  open  paths  of  the  world's 
commerce."  In  practice  President  Wilson's  principle  would 
have  to  be  restated  rather  more  fully  as  follows.  Without  pre- 
judices to  the  right  of  each  state  to  exact  duty  on  and  to 
exercise  the  fullest  administrative  control  over  the  import  of  all 
goods  for  consumption  or  use  in  its  territory,  there  should  be 
a  guarantee  of  complete  freedom  for  goods  in  transit.  That 
freedom  would  include  freedom  from  duties  and  from  hostile 
discrimination  by  administrative  measures,  e.  g.,  the  manipulation 
of  railway  freights.    This  principle  of  international  policy  would 


ii2  SELECTED    ARTICLES 

imply  a  guarantee  of  universal  international  right  of  way  of 
rivers  and  railways.  As  soon  as  the  facts  and  the  principle  are 
stated  in  this  way,  it  is  clear  how  impossible  of  achievement  they 
would  be  under  the  old  international  and  diplomatic  system,  and 
how  on  the  other  hand  a  League  of  Nations  would  make  their 
achievement  possible.  Three  conditions  are  necessary  if  this 
general  principle  is  to  be  translated  into  practice.  The  guarantee 
must  be  neither  a  vague  one  nor  a  sham ;  it  must  be  a  definite 
and  joint  guarantee  of  all  the  states,  or  at  least  all  the  great 
states  of  the  world,  and  with  the  full  sanction  of  their  power 
behind  it.  Secondly,  if  the  guarantee  is  to  be  fulfilled,  it 
will  require  the  close  and  permanent  co-operation  of  the  states 
concerned.  Thirdly,  it  will  require  the  creation  of  machinery 
through  which  this  co-operation  may  work.  Only  some  sort  of 
an  international  organisation  of  states  like  the  League  of  Nations 
could  fulfill  these  conditions. 

The  nature  of  the  alternative  to  such  co-operation  in  a 
League  may  best  be  shown  by  returning  to  the  question  of 
Poland.  The  problem  of  the  reconstitution  of  an  autonomous 
Poland  is,  as  we  said,  one  in  which  nationality  and  economics 
play  an  equal  part.  Polish  economic  needs  stretch  out  far  be- 
yond the  confines  of  geographical  nationality  to  the  sea  at 
Danzig  and  to  the  industrial  regions  of  Silesia.  No  solution  is 
possible  so  long  as  the  German  Empire  and  the  new  autonomous 
Poland  are  to  be  organised  on  a  basis  of  international  competitive 
hostility.  Take  the  case  of  the  northern  boundary  of  the  new 
Poland.  If  political  boundaries  are  strictly  to  follow  nationality, 
a  narrow  strip  of  territory  along  the  western  bank  of  the 
Vistula  from  Thorn  to  the  west  of  Danzig  would  be  added  to 
autonomous  Poland.  But  to  run  a  narrow  strip  of  Poland 
through  the  middle  of  Prussia  and  to  expect  a  "durable 
peace"  would  be  to  yield  to  the  hallucinations  of  either 
ignorance  or  optimism.  To  propose  to  make  West  Prussia  and 
the  German  port  of  Danzig  a  part  of  Poland,  thus  separating 
East  Prussia  from  Germany,  is  an  even  more  disastrous  fantasy. 
The  alternative  is  to  leave  West  and  East  Prussia  to  Germany, 
and  this  once  more  cuts  oft  Poland  from  its  northern  economic 
outlet  to  the  sea  at  Danzig. 

Here  we  have  an  impasse  created  by  irreconcilable  ideals, 
political   and    economic.     Under   the    old    system   there   is   no 


A    LEAGUE    OF    NATIONS  113 

way  out.  But  there  is  an  obvious  and  practical  solution  if 
the  League  of  Nations  and  the  principle  of  the  economic 
rights  of  way  be  established  together  with  the  means  of  put- 
ting the  principle  into  operation  which  we  have  indicated. 
For  there  are  two  main  conditions  of  a  reconciliation  between 
the  political  and  economical  ideals  and  needs :  ( 1 )  a  guarantee 
of  political  rights  for  such  Poles  as  would  remain  within  the 
Prussian  province  of  Germany  and  for  such  Germans  as  would 
be  included  in  the  autonomous  Poland ;  (2)  the  guarantee  of  an 
economic  right  of  way  on  the  Vistula  and  the  German  railways 
to  Danzig  and  the  sea  for  Poland.  Both  these  conditions  can 
be  fulfilled  by  a  League  of  Nations,  but  only  if  machinery  be 
provided  by  which  Poland  can  bring  for  decision  before  an 
authoritative  international  body,  lLke  the  Commission  and 
Tribunal  suggested,  any  complaint  that  the  guarantee  of  an 
economic  right  of  way  is  not  being  carried  out. 

The  present  war  is  due  to  so  great  variety  of  different 
causes  that  it  is  a  dangerous  thing  to  isolate  any  one  of  them 
and  say,  "The  war  is  due  to  that."  But  few  persons  with 
any  knowledge  of  international  relations  during  the  last  thirty 
years  will  deny  that  deep  down  in  the  origins  of  the  pres- 
ent conflict  the  question  of  overseas  possessions,  of  the  con- 
trol, economic  or  political,  of  Africa  and  Asia,  played  a  very 
large  part. 

There  can  be  no  peace  in  the  world  so  long  as  the  com- 
petitive and  exclusive  policy  with  regard  to  overseas  posses- 
sions holds  sway.  Political  control  in  Africa  and  Asia  is  very 
unequally  divided  between  the  Great  Powers  of  the  world. 
If  that  political  control  is  used  through  protective  tariffs,  con- 
cessions, and  other  exclusive  privileges  (including  similar 
methods  applied  in  spheres  of  influence)  to  exclude  participation 
of  other  countries  in  the  economic  privileges  and  opportunities, 
the  economic  struggle  will  inevitably  be  transferred  first  to  the 
field  of  diplomacy  and  finally  to  the  field  of  battle.  Englishmen 
are  naturally  slow  to  see  this  because  of  the  position  of  their 
Empire  in  the  world.  And  it  would  be  folly  to  imagine  that 
this  is  a  question  merely  between  Germany  and  the  possessory 
Powers.  If  the  policy  of  exclusiveness  and  competition  con- 
tinue, it  will  not  be  long  before  the  financial,   industrial,   and 


ii4  SELECTED   ARTICLES 

commercial  interests  in  America,  Italy,  and  Japan  are  claiming 
their  right  to  places  in  the  sun — in  fact,  the  recent  history  of 
Japan  shows  that  the  process  has  already  started. 

On  the  other  hand,  history  shows  that  a  policy  of  co-opera- 
tion and  equal  privileges — a  policy  embodied  in  the  open 
door,  free  trade  in  dependencies,  international  control  by 
financial  national  groups  in  association  with  their  own  govern- 
ment as  in  China — does  not  involve  any  sacrifice  of  the  eco- 
nomic interests  of  the  European  state.  It  is  true  that  as 
pursued  in  the  past  it  has  unquestionably  often  involved  the 
sacrifice  of  the  interests  of  the  Asiatic  and  African  peoples. 
The  financial  and  commercial  exploitation  of  Africa  and 
China  is  a  page  in  its  history  which  Western  civilisation 
can  hardly  view  with  pride  or  even  complacency.  If  Euro- 
pean commerce,  finance,  and  industry  are  going  to  find  some 
means  of  dividing  among  themselves  the  fields  for  profit  in 
Asia  and  Africa,  or  if  they  are  going  to  co-operate  in  pro- 
moting their  interests  in  those  fields,  then  it  is  essential  that 
some  method  should  exist  for  representing  and  protecting  the 
interests  of  the  inhabitants  of  Asia  and  Africa. 

These  considerations  indicate  both  why  the  old  attempts 
at  international  co-operation  finally  failed  and  how  the  League 
of  Nations  would  afford  a  greater  probability  of  success. 
What  was  lacking  under  the  old  system  was  any  ade- 
quate guarantee.  Take  the  case  of  China  for  instance.  Here 
a  right  principle  of  policy  had  been  laid  down,  embodied 
in  the  "open  door"  and  the  "most  favored  nation"  clause. 
Under  this  principle  no  European  nation  should  obtain  any 
exclusive  economic  privilege.  But  there  was  no  adequate 
guarantee  behind  this  arrangement.  It  rested  not  upon  a  com- 
mon international  agreement  to  which  the  parties  were  definitely 
and  jointly  pledged,  but  upon  isolated  treaties  between  the 
several  Powers  and  China  and  the  bare  enunciation  of  policy 
by  statesmen  in  their  speeches.  Again,  even  when,  as  in  the 
Congo  Treaty,  joint  action  was  taken,  and  the  principle  was 
maintained  in  practice. 

The  League  provides  means  of  meeting  both  these  difficul- 
ties. In  the  first  place  it  can  lay  down  definitely  the  principle 
to  regulate  the  economic  relations  of  the  Powers  in  Asia 
and  Africa.     The  principle  must  make  impossible  the  compe- 


A    LEAGUE    OF    NATIONS  115 

tition  for  exclusive  economic  privileges.  That  implies  a 
guarantee  of  the  Open  Door  and  Free  Trade  in  Africa  and 
Asia,  and  a  regularised  system  of  common  action  in  finance, 
railway  construction,  etc.,  on  the  model  of  the  Sextuple  Syn- 
dicate in  China.  And  it  should  be  remarked  that  the  old 
principles  of  the  Open  Door  and  Free  Trade  would  require 
under  modern  conditions  the  adoption  of  a  supplementary 
principle  of  international  economic  policy — namely,  an  agree- 
ment through  which  an  equitable  allocation  and  distribution 
of  tropical  raw  materials  would  be  assured  to  all  industrial 
nations.  Behind  this  agreement  would  be  the  full  guarantee 
of  the  League  and  the  sanction  of  its  collective  power.  And 
being  a  permament  alliance  and  association  of  states,  the 
League  would  be  able  to  create  the  permament  machinery 
necessary  for  seeing  that  the  provisions   were  carried   out  in 

detail. 
*********** 

Everyone  can  see  now  that  if  questions  of  nationality,  ter- 
ritory, colonies,  and  trade  are  not  handled  in  a  manner  very 
different  from  that  in  which  the  world  was  content  to  ap- 
proach them  before  the  war,  history  will  tragically  repeat 
itself.  There  are  two  alternative  directions  in  which  policy 
can  move,  one  of  international  hostility  and  the  other  of  in- 
ternational co-operation,  and  a  League  of  Nations  can  alone 
provide  a  firm  basis  for  the  latter.  But  there  are  other  re- 
gions of  international  relationship  in  which  the  Nemesis  of 
international  hostilities  is  not  so  certain  nor  the  need  for  co- 
operation so  clearly  insistent,  but  yet  in  which  the  benefits  to 
the  world  of  close  joint  action  between  states  through  a 
League  can  be  shown  to  be  enormous.  In  this  article  we 
propose  to  consider  one  or  two  of  these  obscurer  instances. 

When  the  Prime  Minister  of  France  spoke  the  other  day 
of  "the  League  of  Nations  which  is  organising  itself  before 
our  eyes,"  he  referred  no  doubt  to  the  Alliance  of  the  Powers 
of  the  Entente.  The  thought  had  already  found  expression 
in  America.  In  the  organisation  of  this  Alliance,  it  seems, 
we  have  already  the  beginnings  of  a  League.  It  is  worth 
while  pausing  for  a  moment  and  endeavoring  in  as  detached 
a  frame  of  mind  as  possible  to  compare  the  international 
structure  of  to-day  with  that  of  August,   1914.     It  is  difficult 


n6  SELECTED   ARTICLES 

to  be  quite  certain  that  one  is  correct  as  to  the  numbers,  but 
there  are,  we  believe,  eleven  sovereign  states  in  the  Alliance. 
These  states  between  them  control  about  five-sevenths  of  the 
territory  of  Europe,  half  Asia,  and  the  whole  of  the  con- 
tinents of  North  America,  Africa  and  Australia.  In  other 
words,  they  control  about  35,000,000  square  miles  out  of  the 
total  50,000,000  square  miles  of  territory  (excluding  the  Polar 
Regions)  of  the  world.  And  if  you  look  at  their  existing 
organisation  you  might  be  pardoned  the  boast  that  here 
already  is  the  United  States  of  the  World  in  embryo.  For 
history  can  show  no  example  of  independent  states  welded 
into  closer  or  more  highly  organized  co-operation.  Military, 
economic,  and  even  the  details  of  internal  administration  are 
settled  in  a  continuous  series  of  conferences  in  which  the  states 
are  represented  by  their  highest  executive  officers  and  by  the 
permament  officials  of  government  departments.  The  sovereignty 
of  these  states  is  entangled  in  and  restricted  by  a  network  of 
reciprocal  international  agreements  which  deal  with  every 
imaginable  subject,  from  the  right  of  the  individual  state  to 
make  peace  to  the  right  of  its  subjects  to  dispose  of  their 
oranges.  The  whole  of  the  communications  in  the  vast  area 
under  the  control  of  the  Alliance — the  railways,  ships,  road 
transport,  even  aerial  transport — is  gradually  being  brought 
completely  under  state  control,  and  is  then  used  not  for  the 
use  of  this  state  or  of  that  state  but  to  supply  the  needs  of 
the  Alliance.  In  the  same  way  the  commodities  needed  by 
the  Alliance  have  to  a  great  extent  been  internationalised,  and 
it  is  hardly  an  exaggeration  to  say  that  the  whole  output  of 
the  word's  staple  food  products  and  metals  is  taken  up  into 
the  hands  of  this  world  state  and  distributed  as  occasion  re- 
quires to  such  parts  of  it — Britain,  for  instance,  or  France  or 
Italy — which  for  economic  and  industrial  purposes  are  federal 
divisions. 

Here,  then,  is  a  League  of  Nations  with  a  system  of  in- 
ternational government  so  advanced  and  so  highly  organized 
that  not  even  the  most  optimistic  internationalist  would  three 
years  ago  have  imagined  it  practicable  this  side  of  the  mil- 
lenium.  With  this  Federation  of  the  World  before  his  eyes, 
no  one  will  be  able  to  say  again  that  international  agree- 
ments   are    useless,    that    international    co-operation    is    impos- 


A    LEAGUE    OF    NATIONS  117 

sible,  or  that  international  government  is  a  chimera.  The 
only  question  remains  whether  man  is  so  ferocious  an  animal 
that  he  will  build  up  this  enormous  system  of  international 
co-operation  for  the  purposes  of  war  and  will  refuse  or  allow 
his  rulers  to  refuse  to  employ  it  for  the  purposes  of  peace. 
A  few  examples  will  show  how  long  the  necessity  for  such  a 
League  of  Nations  for  the  purpose  of  peace  has  existed. 

International  co-operation  for  industrial  and  economic 
purposes  in  times  of  peace  is,  of  course,  no  new  thing.  The 
Universal  Postal  Union,  the  Telegraphic  Unions,  the  Rail- 
way Unions  and  other  organisations  are  all  examples  of 
Unions  of  States  for  the  purpose  of  improving  international 
communications  through  international  administration.  The 
International  Institute  of  Agriculture  was  created  to  perform 
the  same  function  for  the  world's  production  and  supply  of 
food.  Nearly  all  of  them  originated  in  the  minds  of  "inter- 
nationalists" who  hardly  escaped  the  popular  title  of  cranks. 
Their  history,  which  extends  back  nearly  three-quarters  of 
a  century,  is  one  of  uninterrupted  success.  But  these  efforts 
after  international  co-operation  through  unions  of  states  have 
always  suffered  from  one  great  difficulty.  The  Unions  were 
effected  for  specific  purposes,  for  arranging  the  international 
postal  system,  or  for  promoting  the  interests  of  agriculture. 
To  carry  out  this  purpose  a  permanent  organ  of  international 
government  was  created  by  treaty,  composed  of  the  represen- 
tatives of  the  signatory  powers.  These  little  islands  of  inter- 
nationalism were  dotted  about — at  Berne  or  Rome  or  some 
other  town — in  the  great  sea  of  European  nationalism. 
There  they  were  left  forgotten,  if  indeed  they  had  ever  been 
remembered.  It  is  only  because  the  officers  who  represented 
the  different  states  upon  them  were  keen  upon  their  work 
that  they  achieved  much — incomplete  obscurity.  But  their 
success  was  continually  hampered  by  the  complete  lack  of  co- 
ordination in  international  effort,  by  the  want  of  any  cen- 
tre for  international  co-operation  on  a  large  scale.  This  is 
most  obvious  in  the  history  of  the  International  Institute  of 
Agriculture.  The  Institute  was  created  by  International 
Treaty  in  1905  entirely  owing  to  the  imagination  and  perti- 
nacity of  an  American,  Mr.  Lubin.  Its  work  was  to  be, 
besides   study  and  publication,   the  elaboration   and   submission 


n8  SELECTED   ARTICLES 

for  the  approval  of  Governments  of  "measures  for  the  pro- 
tection of  common  interests  of  farmers  and  for  improvement 
of  their  condition."  The  Institute  has  undoubtedly  accom- 
plished extremely  useful  work  in  the  collection  and  publication 
of  information,  but  its  most  fervid  admirer  would  not  deny 
that  it  has  accomplished  nothing  in  its  twelve  years  of  exis- 
tence compared  with  what  the  organisation  of  the  Alliance 
has  accomplished  in  the  sphere  of  international  agricultural 
production  and  distribution.  And  a  very  little  study  of  the 
subject  will  convince  anyone  that  international  action  and  co- 
operation with  regard  to  agricultural  products  is  just  as 
necessary  in  time  of  peace  as  in  time  of  war.  Thus  the 
Italian  Government  in  1905  drew  attention  to  the  immense 
benefits  which  would  result  from  co-operation  between  states 
for  agricultural  insurance.  A  large  reduction  of  premiums 
could  only  be  attained  by  extending  the  area  of  insurance — for 
the  probability,  e.g.,  of  a  drought  occurring  in  two  widely 
separated  countries  at  the  same  time  is  small — and  this  could 
only  be  done  by  international  action.  The  whole  crops  of  a 
country  could  be  insured,  and  this  would  require  a  states  enter- 
prise, after  which  the  states  enterprises  should  be  federated. 
In  1905  such  a  suggestion  sounded  almost  Utopian,  but 
it  is  primitive  compared  to  some  of  the  international 
financial  and  industrial  operations  of  191 7.  Again,  the 
Italian  Government  in  the  same  year  proposed  international 
organisation  against  rings,  monopolies,  and  speculative  dealings 
in  staple  agricultural  products,  for  such  operations  have  a  dis- 
astrous effect  not  only  upon  the  consumers  but  upon  the  pro- 
ducers, and  they  could  only  be  dealt  with  effectually  from  joint 
international  action.  Finally,  in  1914,  the  Senate  and  House 
of  Representatives  of  the  U.S.A.  passed  a  resolution  instruct- 
ing their  delegate  at  Rome  to  take  steps  to  obtain,  if  possible, 
a  Conference  on  Freights  and  the  Establishment  of  an  Inter- 
national Commission  on  Freights.  The  important  effect  of  the 
movements  and  manipulation  of  transport  charges  upon  the 
price  of  agricultural  products  has  been  brought  home  to  most 
people  during  the  war.  There  is  no  possibility  of  dealing  with 
freights  in  the  interests  of  producers  and  consumers  except 
by  international  co-operation  and  regulation.  Mr.  Lubin  him- 
self had  long  ago  seen  this,  and  his  idea  was  that  the  Inter- 


A    LEAGUE    OF    NATIONS  119 

national  Institute  of  Agriculture  should  lead  up  to  the  estab- 
lishment of  a  permanent  International  Freights  Tribunal  or 
Commission,  modelled  upon  the  Inter-States  Commerce  Com- 
mission of  the  U.S.A.,  and  entrusted  with  definite  powers  of 
regulating  freights  for  food  products.  The  action  of  the  two 
Houses  of  the  American  Legislature  was  a  hesitating  step  in 
this  direction. 

Now,  whatever  be  the  merits  of  these  particular  schemes, 
one  thing  is  clear.  There  are  enormous  possibilities  of  ad- 
vantage to  the  world  in  international  co-operation  and  ad- 
ministration with  regard  to  agricultural  products.  If  those 
possibilities  were  realised,  the  effect  upon  the  material  pros- 
perity of  the  world  would  travel  far  beyond  the  ultimate 
dreams  of  the  most  Utopian  dreamer.  For  few  people  re- 
member, if  they  are  born  and  bred  in  an  industrial  city,  that 
the  whole  population  of  the  world  is  still  composed  of  con- 
sumers of  agricultural  products,  and  an  immense  majority  of 
its  inhabitants  are  still  either  cultivators  or  herdsmen  or 
shepherds.  But  the  nineteenth  century  with  its  revolution  in 
transport  and  trade  converted  agriculture  from  a  national  into 
an  international  industry.  National  regulation  of  the  dis- 
tribution and  transport  of  agricultural  products,  even  national 
organisation  of  agricultural  production  and  insurance,  is  to- 
day an  anachronism.  In  these  matters,  it  is  not  the  inter- 
nationalist who  is  a  dreamer  living  in  the  future,  but  the 
nationalist  who  is  a  dreamer  living  in  the  past.  But  before 
the  war  came  and  forced  Governments  of  the  Entente  to  face 
either  the  facts  or  defeat,  only  a  few  groups  of  financiers  and 
capitalists  in  each  country  realised  the  truth  that  national 
organisation  of  production  and  distribution  is  out  of  date,  and 
they  acted  upon  it  with  great  benefit  to  their  own  pockets. 

Now  the  League  would  be  an  Alliance  for  the  purpose  of 
peace  of  the  same  kind  as  existing  alliances  for  purposes  of 
war.  It  would  provide  those  elements  which  the  isolated  in- 
ternational bodies  lack.  It  would  be  the  centre  for  Inter- 
national action.  The  Institute  would  be  its  scientific  and  de- 
liberative organ  which  would  study  and  draft  projects  of  in- 
ternational insurance  or  international  control  of  the  distribu- 
tion of  agricultural  products.  These  projects  would  no  longer 
be   transmitted  to  and  filed  in   the  pigeon-holes   of   European 


120  SELECTED   ARTICLES 

chancelleries.  They  would  immediately  be  submitted  to  the 
Council  of  the  League  as  definite  proposals  for  international 
agreement  and  action.  And  the  League  would  perform  an- 
other most  necessary  function  in  co-ordinating  the  work  of 
different  international  bodies  which  have  already  sprung  up 
to  meet  actual  international  needs.  Take,  for  instance,  this 
question  of  the  control  of  the  distribution  of  agricultural 
products.  It  requires,  as  the  American  Houses  of  Parlia- 
ment have  seen,  international  action.  But  it  is  not  a  question 
which  can  be  confined  to  agriculture.  It  forms  part  of  the 
larger  problem  of  inter-state  co-operation  for  the  organisa- 
tion and  regulation  of  international  communications  and 
transport.  But  so  insistent  is  this  problem  that,  as  we  saw 
in  a  previous  article,  international  organs  like  the  Railway 
Unions  have  already  been  created  for  dealing  with  some  sides 
of  it,  and  we  indicated  how  the  League  could  with  advantage 
develop  the  existing  organisation.  It  is,  however,  absurd  that 
the  Institute  should  be  dealing  with  one  corner  of  the  prob- 
lem at  Rome,  the  Railway  Union  with  another  corner  at  Berne, 
and  the  Danube  Commission  with  yet  a  third  at  Galatz,  with 
no  link  between  them  to  give  space  and  strength  to  their  efforts. 
Once  the  League  is  formed,  and  once  men  feel  that  it  is  a 
real  alliance  for  the  purposes  of  peace,  we  have  in  its  Council 
a  means  of  uniting  and  co-ordinating  these  scattered  inter- 
national efforts.  The  Institute  of  Agriculture  would  then  com- 
bine with  the  Permanent  International  Commission  on  Rights 
of  Way  (and  therefore  with  all  the  international  bodies  deal- 
ing with  communication)  to  work  out  a  scheme  for  the  develop- 
ment and  control  of  international  communications.  The  possi- 
bilities of  such  action  are  so  illimitable  for  the  material  pros- 
perity of  the  world  that  the  mere  idea  of  mentioning  them  in 
cold  journalistic  print  makes  us  shudder  before  the  inevitable 
shower  of  epithets  like  "dreams"  and  "Utopias."  But,  after 
all,  the  whole  of  the  future  is  to-day  nothing  but  a  dream,  and 
its    depends    upon    ourselves    whether    it    is    to    be  a  pleasant 

dream  or  a  nightmare. 

**  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * 

The  idea  of  a  League  has  naturally  not  been  allowed  to 
grow  up  and  flourish  without  being  subjected  to  criticism, 
objections,  and  attacks.     A  curious  and  enlightening  fact  will 


A    LEAGUE    OF    NATIONS  121 

very  soon  become  apparent  to  anyone  who  reads  the  hostile 
critics  with  any  detachment.  Leaving  on  one  side  all  those 
objections  which  are  concerned  with  details  of  the  various 
schemes — objections  which  are  often  valuable  and  instructive 
—and  ignoring  objections  which  are  merely  frivolous,  ignorant, 
or  ill-tempered,  he  will  find  that  all  the  serious  criticism  centers 
about  a  single  point.  That  point  is  the  value  of  the  League's 
guarantee. 

The  fact  that  nearly  all  serious  objections  center  about  this 
point  as  to  the  guarantee  is  both  curious  and  enlightening.  The 
reason  is  this.  The  fundamental  idea  in  the  schemes  of  a 
League  of  Nations  is  itself  the  provision  of  an  adequate  in- 
ternational guarantee,  and  as  we  have  repeatedly  argued  in  the 
preceding  articles  the  fact  that  the  League  would  provide  a  new 
basis  for  co-operation  among  nations  is  such  a  guarantee.  Thus 
the  critics  and  the  supporters  of  a  League  both  at  least  agree 
in  this,  that  the  problem  of  international  reconstruction  turns 
upon  the  possibility  of  providing  an  adequate  guarantee  for 
international  agreements.  What  divides  the  critic  from  the 
supporter  is  little  else  than  the  difference  between  optimism 
and  pessimism  or  between  hope  and  despair — for  the  one,  con- 
centrating upon  the  repeated  instances  of  international  bad 
faith  and  broken  treaties,  is  unwilling  ever  again  to  believe  in 
the  efficacy  of  international  agreements,  while  the  other  hopes  to 
find  in  the  failures  of  the  past  a  lesson  for  the  future. 

in  the  first  place  the  critics  too  often  demand  of  a  League 
of  Nations  what  no  conceivable  international  system  could 
under  any  circumstances  give  us,  namely,  certainty  as  to  the 
future.  Let  us  take  a  concrete  case.  What  we  all  desire  is 
the  certainty  that  in  future  the  independence  of  Belgium  and 
other  small  states  shall  be  safeguarded  against  aggression.  No 
League  of  Nations  is  ever  going  to  give  us  that  certainty,  but 
then  equally  nothing  else  ever  will.  Nobody  has  ever  suggested 
or  can  suggest  an  international  arrangement  at  the  end  of  the 
war  which  will  make  certain  that  a  successful  attempt  against 
the  independence  of  Belgium  will  not  be  made  in  1930.  But 
the  critics  too  often  demand  of  the  League  of  Nations  what 
they  cannot  possibly  provide  themselves.  The  truth  is  that 
much  misconception  is  caused  by  this  loose  thinking  about  the 
word  guarantee.     Whatever  arrangement  of  the  affairs  of  na- 


122  SELECTED   ARTICLES 

tions  be  made  when  peace  comes,  it  cannot  give  us  any  cer- 
tainty, it  will  only  at  most  make  it  more  or  less  probable  that 
we  shall  attain  our  ends. 

Whether  the  League  of  Nations  be  formed  or  not,  the  world 
of  states,  its  peace,  stability,  progress,  and  righteousness,  will 
depend  upon  international  treaties  and  agreements.  And  ulti- 
mately every  agreement  must  depend  upon  the  faith  and  good 
faith  of  the  parties  to  it.  The  ultimate  guarantee  of  a  League 
of  Nations,  as  of  any  other  future  international  arrangement, 
must  consist  for  us  in  our  own  good  faith  and  our  trust  in 
the  good  faith  of  others.  The  whole  question  is  a  relative  one, 
for  it  concerns  our  belief  in  the  probability  of  obtaining  con- 
ditions under  which  states  will  keep  their  promises.  Now,  in 
this  sense  it  can  be  argued  reasonably  that  a  League  will  create 
conditions  which  did  not  exist  before  the  war  and  which  will 
increase  the  probability  of  international  agreements  being  re- 
spected. In  the  first  place,  the  treaty  which  establishes  the 
League  will  create  a  permanent  union  of  states  for  certain 
specific  purposes  of  international  co-operation.  The  agreement 
will  not  only  specifically  define  the  rights  and  obligations  of 
the  different  states,  but  the  measures  to  be  taken  to  ensure 
that  the  obligations  are  fulfilled.  Now,  incredible  though  it 
may  appear  to  persons  who  are  not  intimately  acquainted  with 
the  details  of  international  history,  these  elementary  guarantees 
never  existed  in  the  case  of  the  .most  important  international 
agreements.  Even  where  several  great  states  signed  treaties 
upon  which  the  peace  of  Europe  obviously  depended,  their  ob- 
ligations have  not  been  clearly  defined.  It  is  the  rarest  thing 
in  the  world  to  find  any  mention  in  a  treaty  of  the  steps  to  be 
taken  to  ensure  compliance  with,  or  performance  of,  its  terms. 

The  League  of  Nations  does  create  and  define  a  joint  obli- 
gation, and  therefore  it  may  correctly  be  said  to  create  a  guar- 
antee which  did  not  exist  before  the  war. 

Thus  the  difference  between  the  critic  and  the  supporter  of  a 
League  may,  as  we  said,  be  reduced  to  the  difference  between 
pessimism  and  optimism.  The  critic  overwhelmed  by  the 
spectacle  of  international  lawlessness  and  bad  faith  despairs 
over  international  law,  and  swears  never  again  to  trust  to  an 
international  treaty.  The  other  sees  that  the  cure  for  lawless- 
ness is  not  less  law  but  more  law,  that  the  cure   for  broken 


A    LEAGUE    OF    NATIONS  123 

treaties  is  more  and  better  treaties,  and  that  the  cure  for  bad 
faith  is  more  faith. 


WHAT  A  LEAGUE  OF  NATIONS  SHALL  BE1 

The  conviction  has  dawned  that  there  is  a  morality  of  states 
as  truly  as  a  morality  of  persons ;  and  that  the  whole  Macchiavel- 
lian  scheme  of  diplomacy — of  mutual  lying  and  cheating  and 
outwitting — is  an  outrage  to  our  human  decencies.  In  the  light 
of  the  new  conviction,  we  see  the  state  as,  in  its  true  nature,  an 
instrument  of  human  welfare.  Either  it  is  that  or  out  it  must 
go.  In  all  sorts  of  ways  we  are  impatient  to-day  of  the  ex- 
ploitations. We  are  increasingly  refusing  to  allow  the  adult  to 
exploit  the  child ;  the  man,  the  woman ;  the  capitalist,  the  laborer. 
And  in  the  same  measure  we  are  refusing  to  accept  the  notion 
that  a  state,  just  because  it  is  a  state,  has  the  privilege  of  gain- 
ing its  special  weal  out  of  the  woe  of  its  neighbors. 

We  are,  in  short,  fashioning  a  new  philosophy  of  statehood, 
a  philosophy  which,  in  the  event,  will  be  as  epoch-making  as  the 
Christian  repudiation  of  the  older  group-morality  view  that  it  is 
perfectly  justifiable  to  hate  one's  enemies.  It  is  the  philosophy 
which  regards  the  state  as  serving  best  its  own  welfare  when  it 
serves  the  welfare  of  the  world  of  states.  It  is  the  philosophy 
of  the  cooperative  as  over  against  the  antagonistic  state,  of  the 
state  as  member  of  a  generous  fellowship  of  states.  It  is  the 
philosophy  which  had  its  glimmers  of  official  expression  when 
the  United  States  gave  back  Cuba  to  the  Cubans  when  the 
United  States  returned  the  Boxer  indemnity;  when  President 
Wilson  refused  to  permit  this  country  to  join  the  capitalistic 
enslavement  of  China  through  the  Six  Power  Loan;  when  the 
same  President  refused  to  give  way  to  the  cries  of  concession 
hunters  and  exploiters  to  "intervene"  in  torn  and  revolutionary 
Mexico.  It  is  the  philosophy  which  had  its  expression  in  the 
grant  by  Great  Britain  of  self-government  to  the  conquered 
South  African  colonies.  It  is  the  philosophy  which  is  animating 
the  liberal  minds  of  England  in  the  settlement  of  the  Irish  ques- 

1  From  "World  Organization,"  by  Harry  Allen  Overstreet.  An  address 
delivered  before  the  Women's  Peace  Party  of  New  York  State,  February 
19,   1918. 


124  SELECTED    ARTICLES 

tion.  It  is  the  philosophy  denied  by  annexionists,  pan-Germans, 
pan-Slavists,  British  Tories,  American  protectionists,  economic 
imperialists  the  world  over.  It  is  the  philosophy  of  political 
generosity,  of  mutual  give  and  take,  of  international  coopera- 
tion and  integration. 

It  is  the  coming  philosophy  of  international  life.  It  is  the 
great  new  venture  of  the  human  spirit ! 

If  there  were  no  such  spirit  animating  mankind,  we  might 
well  be  dubious  of  all  the  elaborated  plans  for  a  leaguing  of 
nations.  Plans  to  the  same  effect  were  made  in  the  past — plenty 
of  them;  but  no  one  of  them  ever  came  to  realization.  Truly. 
But  never  before  has  there  been  the  well-nigh  universal  convic- 
tion that  there  is  to-day;  never  before  has  the  human  mind 
recognized  so  clearly  and  so  decisively  the  point  of  error  in  its 
nationalistic  philosophies.  A  revolution,  has  taken  place  within 
the  human  spirit.  The  outer  revolution  is  now  but  a  matter  of 
finding  out  how  what  the  spirit  demands  is  to  be  accomplished. 

There  are  persons  who  point  the  finger  of  scorn  at  the  vari- 
ous programs  for  a  society  of  nations.  "How  thin,"  they  say; 
"How  creaking. at  the  joints;  how  lacking  all  power  to  inspire; 
how  inadequate  here  and  here  and  here!"  But  those  persons 
should  look  at  a  model  of  the  first  locomotive  ever  projected ! 
What  a  spindling  caricature  compared  with  the  beautiful  giants 
of  later  days !  And  yet  the  spindling  caricature  had  within  it 
the  creative  germ  of  all  that  came  later.1 

That,  I  believe,  is  the  truly  liberating  point  of  view,  to 
realize  that  the  human  spirit  to-day  is  inventing.  Necessity  is 
ever  the  mother  of  invention.  Never  in  all  the  world's  history 
was  necessity  so  tragically  insistent !  There  must  be  a  way  of 
escape  from  the  old  mad  antagonisms.  There  must  be  a  leagu- 
ing of  nations.  How?  That,  perhaps,  we  do  not  yet  know  with 
clearness  and  finality.  We  shall  seek  as  best  we  can.  We  shall 
fail  as  often  as  not.  But  somehow,  union  of  nations  there  must 
be,  or,  in  literal  truth,  our  boys  have  died  in  vain. 

It  is  necessary  then  that  we  who  care  should  inform  our- 
selves very  accurately  as  to  this  new  project  of  a  League  of 
Nations.  If  we  are  to  help  clarify  and  equip  public  opinion,  our 
advocacy  must  be  more  than  sentimental;  it  must  be  more  than 

1 1  am  indebted  for  this  comparison  to  some  remarks  of  Senator  Henri 
La  Fontaine. 


A    LEAGUE    OF    NATIONS  125 

an  utterance  of  platitudes.  It  must  be  a  vigorous  and  thorough 
grappling  with  the  problems  and  possibilities  of  the  interna- 
tional situation.. 

Speaking  generally,  I  believe  it  may  be  said  that  the  thought 
of  most  of  us  regarding  an  international  organization  which  is 
to  secure  a  durable  peace  suffers  from  two  defects:  it  is  over- 
legal,  and  it  is  overstatic.  Trained  as  we  are  in  the  conception 
that  law  is  the  great  stabilizer  of  social  life,  when  we  hear  of  a 
serious  and  apparently  irreconcilable  contention  arising  between 
two  parties,  our  first  thought  is  of  a  court  of  law  to  settle  the 
case.  Settling  the  case  means  to  us  finding  in  precisely  what 
manner  the  "law"  applies  in  the  particular  situation.  In  our  so- 
cial life,  however,  contentions  constantly  arise  to  which  there  is 
no  accepted  body  of  law  that  can  be  applie-d,  as,  for  example, 
contentions  between  capital  and  labor.  In  such  instances,  with 
some  reluctance,  we  have  passed  beyond  reliance  upon  the  more 
rigorously  legal  type  of  court  and  have  developed  a  less  legal 
type  of  organization — a  board  of  arbitration.  But  even  here  the 
"court"  conception  has  still  been  predominant.  For  example, 
there  is  always  a  "case" — two  sides  in  conflict ;  and  there  is  al- 
ways, too  a  tribunal  to  "hear"  the  case  and  "decide." 

It  has  been  only  with  greatest  difficulty  that  we  have  reached 
a  third  conception,  namely,  that  a  conflict  to  be  really  settled, 
must  be  settled  through  a  change  of  view  of  the  parties  tJi cm- 
selves.  When  a  court  or  a  board  of  arbitration  hands  down  its 
decision,  it  usually  leaves  one  party  defeated  and  resentful. 
Where,  as  in  many  cases,  issues  are  not  clean  cut,  where  there 
is  no  unequivocal  body  of  principles  to  apply,  such  a  solution  is 
eminently  unsatisfactory.  It  is  really  no  solution  at  all.  It  is 
simply  a  makeshift  to  keep  the  peace. 

The  salient  defect  of  the  Hague  Tribunal,  apart  from  the 
fact  that  reference  to  it  was  wholly  voluntary,  was  that  it  was 
overlegalized  to  a  degree  which  made  it  ineffective  as  a  truly 
mediating  body.  It  could  interpret  established  international  law ; 
it  could,  to  a  degree,  make  new  international  law;  it  could  ar- 
bitrate differences  that  had  come  to  a  head,  provided  the  na- 
tions were  willing.  But  it  was  not  a  body,  in  permanent  session, 
which  could  place  its  finger  upon  the  pulse  of  nations  and  detect 
the  first  beginnings  of  international  disaffection;  which  could 
exert  its  good  offices  continuously  through  inquiry  and  sugges- 


126  SELECTED   ARTICLES 

tion  and  conciliation  until  the  disaffection  was  eased  and  the 
nations  restored  to  harmonious  relations. 

It  is  that  function  above  all  of  which  the  world  stands  in 
need.  Most  of  the  disputes  which  lead  to  war  are  of  the  so- 
called  justiciable  type,  disputes,  in  other  words,  like  treaty  in- 
terpretation or  breaches  of  international  law  for  whose  settle- 
ment there  is  a  recognized  body  of  authoritative  law  or  agree- 
ment. Most  of  the  disputes  which  lead  to  war  are  of  the  type 
for  which  there  is  no  recognized  basis  of  settlement.  To  what 
law  or  treaty  or  authoritative  agreement  could  any  court  have 
turned  in  order  to  "adjudicate"  the  long  rivalry  of  Slav  and 
Austrian  ambitions  which  came  to  a  head  finally  in  the  Serbian 
tragedy.  To  the  ordinary  mind  it  is  apparently  axiomatic  that 
if  the  Serbian  difficulty  could  only  have  been  "arbitrated,"  this 
war  would  have  been  averted.  Perhaps  so;  and  also,  perhaps 
not.  For  to  what  recognized  principles  of  adjudication  could 
the  arbitrators  have  turned?  The  conflict  was  a  long  standing 
clash  of  ambitions,  hatreds  and  suspicions,  complicated  by  almost 
hopeless  misunderstandings  superinduced  by  a  mischievious  se- 
cret diplomacy,  complicated  the  more,  too,  by  the  fact  that  back 
of  and  supporting  and  encouraging  the  nationalistic  ambitions 
were  the  competitions  of  capitalistic  groups. 

Arbitration  at  that  tragic  time  in  August  1914  might  have 
stayed  the  battles  for  a  short  period;  might  even  have  post- 
poned the  war  for  a  number  of  years.  But  no  real  settlement 
of  the  issue  was  possible  short  of  a  long  process  of  inquiry, 
mediation  and  conciliation,  a  process  open  and  known  of  all  the 
world. 

The  outstanding  difference  between  the  international  plans 
hitherto  in  operation  or  proposed  and  the  typical  plans  now  pro- 
posed for  the  international  settlement  of  disputes  is  the  large 
emphasis  which  the  latter  place  upon  the  deeply  important 
process  of  conciliation.  In  all  the  plans  there  is  indeed  a  place 
for  an  international  court  whose  function  it  shall  be  to  try 
justiciable  cases.  In  all  of  the  plans  there  is  provision  as  well 
for  a  Court  of  Arbitration.  But  in  all  of  them  there  is  a  pri- 
mary insistence  upon  the  creation  of  a  permanently  functioning 
Council  of  Conciliation. 

The  second  defect  of  our  customary  thought  about  interna- 
tional organization  is  that  it  is  overstatic.    We  believe— most  of 


A    LEAGUE    OF    NATIONS  127 

us — rather  naively  in  "settlements."  When  the  peace  congress 
shall  meet,  we  rather  fondly  anticipate  that  if  it  is  but  consti- 
tuted of  honest  men  of  real  intelligence,  a  plan  may  be  hit  upon 
for  solving  once  and  for  all  the  perplexing  difficulties  about 
boundaries,  nationalities  and  so  on  that  kept  our  world  in 
unrest.  Our  doubts  are  not  as  to  the  possibility  of  such  a  per- 
manent settlement,  but  rather  as  to  the  possibility  of  obtaining 
peace  delegates  of  this  character. 

There  could  be  no  greater  fallacy.  What  is  chiefly  character- 
istic of  the  world  is  the  quality  of  change.  No  national  group 
maintains,  decade  after  decade,  the  same  unwavering  point  of 
view,  the  same  ambitions  or  lack  of  ambitions,  the  same  prides 
or  lack  of  prides,  the  same  pressure  of  population,  the  same 
economic  outlook.  Germany  is  a  striking  example  in  point.  The 
Germany  of  to-day  is  so  little  the  Germany  of  Goethe's  time 
that,  save  in  language  and  geography,  it  is  scarcely  recognizable 
as  the  same  land.  Much  has  transpired  in  the  world  since 
Goethe's  time — particularly  the  industrial  revolution — to  bring  to 
Germany  new  solidarities,  new  outlooks,  new  ambitions.  The 
same  is  true  of  Russia,  of  the  Balkan  States,  of  Poland  and 
Turkey.  The  same  is  true  of  the  United  States.  The  America 
of  to-day  would  be  scarcely  recognizable  by  the  men  who  fought 
for  its  deliverance  in  the  Revolution. 

The  trouble  with  the  Congress  of  Berlin  was  that  it  made  its 
decision  and  went  home.  It  expected  that  decision  to  be  good 
for  all  time.  It  had  a  naive  faith  in  the  ability  of  the  world  to 
"stay  put,"  particularly  after  the  greater  part  of  the  civilized 
world  had  bidden  it  so  to  stay.  It  provided  no  means  whereby 
its  decisions  might  be  "stretched"  to  cover  changes  in  tempers 
and  powers  than  any  one  might  easily  have  predicted  would  in- 
evitably rise.  The  Congress  of  Berlin  went  home.  And  so  in- 
stead of  controlling  the  changes,  directing  them  into  salutary 
channels,  the  changes  more  and  more  controlled  it,  until 
flagrantly,  in  one  case  after  another,  they  set  the  august  de- 
cision of  the  Congress  flatly  at  naught. 

What  is  needed  if  decisions  are  to  live  and  operate  is  an  in- 
ternational adjusting  body  that  will  not  go  home,  that  will  be 
continuously  on  the  job.  Brails  ford  has  made  this  convincingly 
clear  in  his  book  "A  League  of  Nations."  He  has  insisted  that 
there  be  an  international  body— he  calls  it  the  International  Ex- 


128  SELECTED   ARTICLES 

ecutive— not  only  permanent  but  small  enough  in  size  and  with 
a  sufficient  breadth  and  flexibility  of  powers  to  make  possible 
not  only  a  constant  alertness  to  changing  international  situa- 
tions but  an  instant  power  of  suggestion  and  mediation. 

Many  of  the  plans  proposed  neglect  this  fundamental  de- 
sideratum. They  are  constructed  in  the  spirit  of  the  conven- 
tional thought  that  all  that  is  needed  for  secure  peace  is  some 
international  body  of  reference  to  "settle"  disputes.  What  is 
needed  just  as  truly,  Brailsford  shows,  is  a  body  capable  of  as- 
sisting in  the  unsettling  of  settlements  when  old  settlements  no 
longer  adequately  apply  to  changed  conditions.  At  the  present 
time  the  only  way  of  unsettling  old  settlements  is  the  drastic 
way  of  war. 

The  main  lines  of  organization  of  a  League  of  Nations  are 
not  difficult  to  trace.1  There  is  first  the  criterion  of  admission  to 
the  League.  In  this  respect  two  radically  different  tendencies 
are  noticeable  among  the  plans  proposed.  There  is,  in  the  first 
place,  the  conviction  that  all  states  of  the  world  should  at  once 
be  freely  admitted  to  membership  in  the  League.  There  is,  in 
the  second  place,  the  conviction  that  League  membership  should 
be  restricted  in  the  first  instance  to  the  Great  Powers,  and  that 
other  states  should  be  admitted  only  as  these  Powers  agree. 
There  is  much  to  be  said  for  each  plan.  For  the  second,  it  may 
be  argued  that  the  leap  from  the  sheer  independence  of  sov- 
ereignty of  the  large  number  of  states,  big  and  little,  mature  and 
immature,  of  the  world,  to  the  immediate  federation  of  the  en- 
tire world  is  a  very  long  leap  indeed,  which  may  quite  easily 
prove  disastrous.  It  may  not  be  an  altogether  unwise  move, 
therefore,  to  take  the  first  step  toward  the  federation  of  the 
world  by  the  effective  leaguing  together  of  those  states  which 
are  sufficiently  similar  in  standard  and  political  ideal  to  make 
the  league  immediately  workable.  For  the  first  proposal,  it  may 
be  said,  on  the  other  hand,  that  any  initial  exclusion  from  mem- 
bership tends  to  continue  the  old  balance  of  power  which  proved 

1  The  following  is  a  list  of  the  most  carefully  elaborated  plans:  Cen- 
tral Organization  for  a  Durable  Peace;  Fabian  Research  Committee;  Brails- 
ford's  League  of  Nations;  League  to  Enforce  Peace;  Draft  Convention  for 
a  League  of  Nations  (Recommendations  of  the  Study  Group  of  the  League 
to  Enforce  Peace);  Community  of  Nations  Pamphlet;  La  Fontaine's  Great 
Solution;  American  Peace  Society;  World  Court  League;  Cosmos;  Inter- 
national Congress  of  Women;  Proposals  for  the  Avoidance  of  War  (British 
Group;  Lord  Bryce) ;  League  of  Nations  Society;  Otlet,  World  Charter 
Organizing  the  Union  of  the  States. 


A    LEAGUE    OF    NATIONS  129 

so  disastrous  to  the  world  in  the  past,  besides  allotting  to  the 
Great  Powers  a  leadership  that  may  easily  become  an  injustice 
to  the  remaining  states  of  the  world.  The  problem  involved  here 
is  a  real  one  which  demands  careful  thought. 

In  the  second  place,  all  the  plans  proposed  provide  for  a 
legislative  function  of  the  League.  In  some  cases  this  takes 
the  form  of  periodic  conferences  of  the  member  states  of  the 
League.  In  others,  it  takes  the  form  of  an  International  Council 
always  complete  and  in  being;  in  others,  of  International  Con- 
ferences from  time  to  time.  The  Bryce  plan  provides  for  con- 
ferences only  at  such  crucial  junctures  as  may  arise  when  states 
fail  to  abide  by  the  conditions  of  the  League.  The  unwillingness 
to  provide  for  a  permament  or  periodic  legislative  body,  is  un- 
doubtedly a  weakness  of  the  British  plan.  Brailsford,  who  fears 
that  a  parliament  with  full  legislative  powers  would  be  too  swift 
a  leap  from  our  present  situation,  suggests  a  consultative  or  ad- 
visory parliament,  which  would,  he  believes,  eventually  develop 
into  a  true  parliament  of  the  world. 

In  the  third  place,  all  the  plans  provide  for  a  tribunal.  The 
tribunal  in  all  cases  is  of  two  kinds — a  Court  (or  Courts)  for 
the  settlement  of  justiciable  disputes;  a  Court  of  Arbitration  and 
a  Council  of  Conciliation  for  investigation  and  recommendation 
with  reference  to  non- justiciable  disputes. 

In  the  fourth  place,  all  the  plans  deal  with  the  question 
whether  the  decisions  of  the  Court  or  recommendations  of  the 
Council  are  to  be  binding  or  not.  In  most  plans,  acceptance  of 
the  decisions  of  the  Court  (justiciable  issues)  is  compulsory. 
In  practically  all  plans,  acceptance  of  the  recommendations  of 
the  Council  of  Conciliation  (non-justiciable)  is  voluntary.  In 
the  fifth  place  all  the  plans  indicate  the  type  of  sanctions  that 
are  to  support  the  decisions  and  recommendations.  In  most 
plans,  failure  to  refer  a  dispute  subjects  the  recalcitrant  nation 
to  the  military  or  economic  pressure  of  the  League;  in  some 
plans  such  failure  subjects  it  simply  to  the  condemnation  of 
world  public  opinion.  In  some  plans  failure  to  accept  the  de- 
cision of  the  Court  subjects  the  recalcitrant  nation  to  the  mil- 
itary or  economic  pressure  of  the  League.  In  other  plans,  states, 
having  referred  a  dispute,  are  at  liberty  to  accept  or  reject  as 
they  please. 

Perhaps  the  deepest  cleavage  in  principle  among  the  plans 


130  SELECTED    ARTICLES 

for  a  world  League  is  upon  the  question  whether  physical  force 
(military  or  economic  or  both)  or  moral  force  is  to  be  em- 
ployed as  a  sanction.  And  yet  it  would  seem  as  if  there  ought 
be  no  difference  of  view  oh  this  matter.  Everyone,  save  an  ex- 
ceedingly small  body  of  extremists — and  even  they  are  not  con- 
sistent— will  admit  that  force  may  be  legitimately  employed  in 
restraint  or  correction.  For  example,  in  ordinary  social  life, 
force  (violence)  is  illegitimately  employed  when  it  is  used  for 
personal  or  interested  ends,  as  when  a  man  strikes  another  in 
wrath  or  hatred,  or  to  secure  for  himself  the  other's  posses- 
sions. When,  on  the  other  hand,  a  policeman  forcibly  restrains 
a  would-be  murderer  or  thief,  force,  being  employed  imperson- 
ally or  disinterestedly  in  the  service  of  weakness  and  through 
the  arm  of  the  state,  is  wholly  legitimate.  In  the  same  manner, 
group  force  is  illegitimately  employed  when  a  nation,  for  its  own 
interests  of  conquest  or  glory,  etc.,  makes  war  upon  another 
nation.  On  the  other  hand,  when  a  group  of  nations,  pledged 
to  support  an  international  agreement  made  for  the  welfare  of 
all,  restrains  or  chastises  a  rebellious  nation,  force  is  legitimate 
because  impersonally  or  disinterestedly  employed. 

There  should  be  no  confusion  of  ideas  here.  It  is  not  force 
that  is  immoral.  It  is  the  immoral  use  of  force.  A  League  of 
Nations  with  no  instrument  of  force  to  back  its  decisions  will, 
apparently,  be  little  more  than  the  rope  of  sand  which  the  Hague 
Tribunal  at  the  moment  of  crisis  proved  to  be. 

So  much  for  the  structure  of  the  international  state.  But  a 
structure  without  foundations  is  a  shaky  affair.  What  of  the 
underlying  principle? 

One  of  the  striking  and  hopeful  aspects  of  all  this  thought 
of  world  rebuilding  which  we  have  outlined  is  that  it  focuses 
with  entire  clearness  upon  a  few  essential  principles  which  are 
to  serve  as  the  foundation  principles  of  the  new  world  charter. 
There  is  no  scattering  in  one  doctrinaire  direction  and  another. 
The  thought  of  men  to-day  is  terribly  serious  and  terribly 
united. 

In  the  first  place  there  is  overwhelming  agreement  as  to  the 
necessity  for  Open  Diplomacy.  "Parliamentary  control  of  for- 
eign policy  ...  so  that  secret  treaties  and  secret  diplomacy  may 
no  longer   endanger  the  most  vital   interests   of  the   nation."1 

1  Neutral  Conference  for  Continuous  Mediation.     Stockholm. 


A    LEAGUE    OF    NATIONS  131 

"Secret  treaties  shall  be  void."1  "Diplomacy  in  all  nations  must 
be  put  under  the  control  of  parliaments  and  public  opinion."2 
"Foreign  politics  shall  be  subject  to  democratic  control."3 
"Abolition  of  secret  diplomacy."4  and  so  on.  Such  are  the 
phrases  used  to  express  the  one  overwhelming  conviction  that 
the  old  diplomacy  of  hidden  bargains,  of  suspicions  and  dreads 
and  surprises,  of  lyings  and  cheatings  must  be  completely  elim- 
inated from  a  decently  organized  world  society  of  nations. 

In  the  second  place  there  is  practically  equal  agreement  upon 
the  principle  that  no  transfer  of  territory  shall  take  place  with- 
out the  consent  of  the  population  involved  and  that  nations 
shall  have  the  right  to  decide  their  own  fate.5  The  German  and 
Austro-Hungarian  Socialists  (Vienna,  April,  1915)  expressed 
this  by  the  phrase:  "Recognition  of  the  right  of  every  people 
to  determine  its  own  destiny."  The  German  Socialists,  as  re- 
ported in  the  New  York  Times  of  August  26,  191 5,  expressed  it 
as  follows:  "Annexations  of  foreign  territories  violate  the 
rights  of  peoples  to  self-rule.  .  .  .  Therefore,  all  plans  of 
short-sighted  politicians  favoring  conquest  are  opposed."  The 
Australian  Peace  Alliance  expresses  it  in  the  words :  "No  province 
or  territory  in  any  part  of  the  world  shall  be  transferred  from 
one  government  to  another  without  the  consent  by  plebiscite  of 
the  population  of  such  province."  The  Federation  of  British 
Peace  Societies:  "No  territorial  change  without  consent  of 
the  population  involved."  So  the  Women's  Movement  for  Con- 
structive Peace  (English),  the  British  Independent  Labor  Party, 
the  Fabian  Society,  the  Union  of  Democratic  Control,  the  So- 
cialist Party  of  America,  The  World  Peace  Foundation,  The 
American  School  Peace  League,  the  Women's  International 
Peace  Congress,  Brails  ford,  La  Fontaine,  Hobson,  Dickinson, 
Bryce  and  a  host  of  others.  The  principle  of  No  Conquest  is 
therefore  the  second  principle  which  has  emerged  out  of  the 
uncertainties  and  confusions  of  earlier  thought  into  the  clarity 
of  a  world  conviction. 

In  the  third  place,  as  might  be  expected,  there  is  a  concerted 
voice  calling  for  a  sincere  attempt  at  reduction  of  armaments. 

1  Central  Organization  for  a  Durable  Peace. 

2  International  Bureau  of  Peace. 

8  International  Congress  of  Women. 

4  Conference   of   Socialists  from   Sweden,   Norway,   Denmark,   and   Hol- 
land;  1915-  „    ,.    .  „      , ,    , 
6  Neutral  Conference  for  Continuous  Mediation.     Stockholm, 


132  SELECTED   ARTICLES 

''Armaments  must  be  reduced  according  to  general  agreement 
and  placed  under  international  control"  (International  Bureau 
of  Peace)  ;  "Considerable  reduction  of  armies  and  application 
of  war  budgets  to  education,"  etc.  (Union  of  International  As- 
sociations, Brussels)  ;  "The  States  shall  agree  to  reduce  their 
armaments"  (Central  Organization  for  a  Durable  Peace) ; 
"Disarmament  to  be  brought  about  by  international  agreement" 
(Neutral  Conference  for  Continuous  Mediation)  ;  and  so  on. 
With  this  goes,  in  some  of  the  plans,  the  demand  that  "as  a  step 
to  this  end  all  countries  should  .  .  .  take  over  the  manufacture 
of  arms  and  munitions  of  war  and  should  control  all  interna- 
tional traffic  in  the  same,  since  in  the  private  profits  accruing 
from  the  great  armament  factories"  there  is  "a  powerful  hin- 
drance to  the  abolition  of  war."  Whether  the  disarmament 
shall  be  gradual  or  immediate,  partial  or  complete,  the  agree- 
ment, again,  is  overwhelming  that  no  future  world  organization 
can  be  contemplated  that  does  not  take  effective  steps  to  root  out 
the  war  breeding  evil  of  competition  in  armaments. 

In  the  fourth  place  there  is  a  large  agreement,  an  agreement 
that  is  growing  into  a  more  emphatic  insistence  as  the  war 
progresses  and  the  underlying  issues  are  more  clearly  seen,  upon 
the  demand  for  Commercial  Freedom.  Whether  this  takes  the 
form  of  a  demand  for  a  removal  of  tariffs,  for  neutralization 
(freedom)  of  the  seas,  or  for  freedom  of  investment  oppor- 
tunities in  foreign  lands,  or  for  all  of  them,  it  is  an  indication 
that  the  world  has  become  instructed,  as  it  never  has  been  be- 
fore, upon  the  war-breeding  quality  of  all  hindrances  to  the  free 
movement  of  legitimate  economic  enterprise.  By  the  more  pen- 
etrating of  the  thinkers,  like  Brailsford  and  Hobson,  commercial 
freedom  is  taken  to  be  the  sine  qua  non  of  a  world  organized 
for  secure  peace.  Brailsford  indeed  calls,  in  his  plan  of  inter- 
national organization,  for  an  international  commission  to  guar- 
antee freedom  of  investment  opportunity  and  freedom  of  access 
to  raw  materials. 

Open  Diplomacy,  No  Conquest,  Reduction  of  Armaments 
Commercial  Freedom— these  apparently  are  to  be  the  four  bed- 
rock principles  upon  which  the  new  international  order  is  to  be 
built,  the  foursquare  foundation,  as  it  were,  upon  which  the  in- 
ternational structure  of  the  future  is  to  rest. 

Foundation  and  superstructure!     The  twentieth  century  has 


A    LEAGUE    OF    NATIONS  133 

its  clear  task  before  it,  its  contribution  to  make  to  the  centuries. 
May  there  be  no  cooling  of  the  heart,  no  slackening  of  its  great 
intention ! 


A  LEAGUE  OF  NATIONS1 

What  are  the  minimum  obligations  which  the  nations 
entering  into  a  free  league  will  be  willing  to  accept,  but  which 
will  be  sufficient  to  make  the  league  effective  for  the  purpose 
for  which  it  is  primarily  created — the  prevention  of  war? 

All  the  proposals  that  I  have  seen  concerning  a  League  of 
Nations  provide  for  a  separation  of  cases  arising  between  the 
members  of  the  League  into  two  classes — justiciable  and  non- 
justiciable. All  agree  that  justiciable  cases  should  go  to  a 
regularly  constituted  court,  either  the  existing  Hague  Court 
or  a  new  court  formed  directly  under  the  League. 

For  the  non-justiciable  cases  it  is  agreed  that  in  the  case 
of  a  difference  between  two  nations  which  they  themselves  are 
unable  to  settle  they  shall  not  go  to  war  with  each  other 
until  the  members  of  the  League,  not  parties  to  the  contro- 
versy, have  had  the  grounds  of  difference  investigated  and  have 
made  recommendations  for  settlement. 

The  method  of  reaching  the  recommendations  raises  the 
question  of  the  nature  of  the  organization  of  the  League.  It 
is  suggested  that  it  will  be  advisable  for  the  body  created  by 
the  direct  representatives  of  the  nations  in  the  League  to 
confine  itself  to  essentially  legislative  functions.  This  body 
should  control  policies ;  it  should  create  instruments  and 
agents  to  carry  out  these  policies.  The  actual  work  should 
be  done  by  these  instruments  and  agents.  A  League  of  Na- 
tions composed  of  a  considerable  number  of  members  could 
well  consider  and  control  policies.  It  could  not  wisely  under- 
take the  investigation  of  a  difference  between  two  na- 
tions and  make  recommendations  concerning  the  same.  These 
duties  should  be  performed  by  a  quasijudicial  body  analogous 
to  a  commission. 

Presuming,  therefore,  that  the  investigation  in  any  case  will 

1  From  an  address  by  Charles  R.  Van  Hise,  late  President  of  the  Uni- 
versity of  Wisconsin,  before  the  Wisconsin  State  Convention  of  the  League 
to  Enforce  Peace,  at  Madison,  November  8,   191 8. 


134  SELECTED   ARTICLES 

be  made  by  a  commission  or  council  appointed  by  the  members 
of  the  League  not  parties  to  the  controversy,  its  recommenda- 
tions, whether  unanimous  or  by  majority,  must  be  final,  pre- 
cisely as  the  determination  of  a  court,  whether  unanimous  or 
by  majority,  is  final.  To  require  that  the  recommendations  of 
a  tribunal  shall  be  unanimous,  or  after  their  consideration  by 
the  members  of  the  League  itself  shall  be  unanimous,  as  has 
been  seriously  proposed,  would  be  a  decision  at  the  outset  to 
make  the  League  of  Nations  futile. 

The  case  of  the  nobles  of  Poland,  who  acted  under  the 
principle  of  unanimity  with  calamitous  consequences  to  that 
country  for  more  than  a  century,  is  a  conclusive  illustration. 
On  the  other  hand,  the  acceptance  by  the  American  people  of 
the  decisions  of  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States, 
often  with  a  bare  majority,  upon  most  momentous  questions, 
some  of  these  between  the  several  States  during  the  early  years 
of  the  Union,  when  the  States  were  being  cemented  into  a  na- 
tion, is  conclusive  evidence  of  the  soundness  of  the  principle 
advocated. 

The  next  question  that  arises  is  what  is  to  happen  if  a 
nation  of  the  League  goes  to  war  contrary  to  the  recommen- 
dations made.  It  has  been  proposed,  indeed  strongly  urged, 
by  many  who  are  advocating  a  League  of  Nations  that  all 
members  of  the  League  shall  bind  themselves  in  such  a  case 
to  support  the  attacked  state  with  their  armies  and  navies,  and 
also  economically. 

It  does  not  seem  to  me  that  it  will  be  practicable  to  secure 
the  agreement  of  the  nations  to  such  a  condition,  and,  I,  there- 
fore, propose  as  a  substitute  that  they  agree  that  any  nation 
in  the  League  shall  be  free,  if  it  so  desires,  to  support  the 
attacked  state  with  its  army  and  its  navy;  and  that  all  the 
members  of  the  League  agree  absolutely  to  boycott  the 
offending  nation,  to  have  no  trade  or  communication  with  it 
in  any  way  whatever,  to  treat  it  as  an  outlaw  among  the  free 
peoples  of  the  world. 

So  dependent  are  nations  upon  one  another  in  these  days 
of  instantaneous  communication,  rapid  transportation,  and 
international  commerce,  that  it  seems  to  me  any  nation  would 
be  very  slow  to  go  to  war  contrary  to  recommendations  which 
had  been  made  upon  its  case,  with  the  certainty  that  the  war 


A   LEAGUE    OF    NATIONS  135 

would  have  to  be  prosecuted  entirely  upon  its  own  resources, 
that  no  help  could  be  in  any  way  derived  from  any  other  na- 
tion; not  only  so,  but  that  in  relations  other  than  war  it  will 
be  treated  as  a  leper. 

In  regard  to  differences  between  states  members  of  the 
League,  and  states  not  members  of  the  League,  the  League 
of  Nations  should  be  free  to  follow  precisely  the  same  pro- 
cedure as  if  both  nations  were  members  of  the  League,  and 
whether  or  not  the  nation  outside  the  League  requested  it, 
should  take  steps  for  the  investigation  of  differences  and  the 
making  of  recommendations.  If  the  nation  outside  the  League 
attacked  a  nation  within  the  League  before  the  case  was  in- 
vestigated and  recommendations  made  or  contrary  to  the 
recommendations,  then,  again,  the  nations  of  the  League  should 
be  free  to  support  their  ally  with  their  armies  and  navies  and 
should  be  bound  to  support  it  by  complete  boycott  of  the 
offending  state. 

In  the  case  of  a  controversy  between  two  nations  altogether 
outside  the  League,  probably  it  is  not  wise  to  propose  that 
the  League  should  do  more  than  tender  its  good  offices  to 
settle  the  difference  which  threatens  war,  precisely  as  if  the 
two  states  were  members  of  the  League.  This  offer  might  not 
always  be  accepted,  but  if  it  were  accepted  by  one  state  and 
not  accepted  by  the  other,  it  is  inevitable  that  the  state  that 
was  attacked  contrary  to  the  recommendation  would  have  at 
least  the  moral  support  and  influence  of  the  nations  of  the 
League,  and  no  war  has  ever  illustrated  the  mighty  power  of 
moral  support  as  has  this  war  which  is  just  being  finished. 

A  question  which  immediately  arises  is,  Shall  Germany, 
which  country  is  already  committed  to  the  principle  of  a  League, 
be  admitted  under  the  terms  of  its  constitution? 

My  answer  is  that  as  soon  as  the  German  people  have 
shown  that  they  are  a  free  people,  wholly  independent  of 
autocracy,  have  completely  abandoned  the  evil  doctrine  of 
Might  and  are  ready  to  support  the  existence  of  a  moral  order 
in  the  world,  that  nation  should  become  a  member  of  the  League 
of  Free  Nations.  This  would  mean  that  Germany,  once  ad- 
mitted to  the  League  in  the  matter  of  armaments  as  well  as 
others,  should  be  treated  upon  the  same  basis  as  the  other 
five  Powers.     But  there  should  be  the  strictest  guarantees  that 


i36  SELECTED   ARTICLES 

the  agreements  should  not  be  surreptitiously  disregarded.  If 
Germany  is  allowed  to  unduly  expand  her  armies,  this  will  start 
again  in  the  world  the  race  for  enormous  armaments. 

Another  question  that  arises  in  connection  with  the  admis- 
sion of  Germany  to  the  League  is  the  economic  treatment  of 
the  Central  Powers  after  the  war.  In  this  matter,  to  my  mind, 
there  are  two  phases,  that  of  reconstruction  and  that  of  a  per- 
manent policy  following  reconstruction.  It  is  possible,  indeed 
probable,  that  during  the  period  of  reconstruction,  there  will 
be  a  shortage  of  essential  materials.  I  hold  that  during  this 
period  the  needs  of  the  Allies  must  have  preference,  since  the 
restoration  of  Belgium,  France,  and  Serbia  has  been  made 
necessary  in  large  measure  because  of  the  ruthless  and  un- 
lawful acts  of  the  Central  Powers. 

Following  the  reconstruction  period,  when  the  world  has 
assumed  its  normal  condition,  the  Central  Powers  should  be 
placed  upon  precisely  the  same  economic  basis  as  are  other 
nations.  Each  nation,  with  regard  to  tariff  and  similar 
policies,  will  retain  its  own  autonomy;  but  the  League  of  Na- 
tions must  see  that  no  nation  within  the  League  which  has 
equal  treatment  with  regard  to  raw  materials  shall  pursue  un- 
fair practices  in  international  trade.  In  short,  unfair  practices 
in  international  trade,  illustrated  by  dumping,  must  be  outlawed 
precisely  as  are  unfair  practices  in  national  trade.  In  this  re- 
spect Germany  has  been  an  offender  in  the  past;  and  only  when 
she  reforms  completely  shall  she  have  the  same  treatment  as 
other  nations  with  regard  to  raw  materials. 

In  order  that  the  League  of  Free  Nations  shall  have  per- 
manence and  its  influence  grow,  it  is  necessary  that  it  shall 
have  something  to  do.  In  the  matter  of  justiciable  cases  this 
is  provided  for.  The  non-justiciable  cases  would  be  sporadic. 
They  would  doubtless  be  handled  as  they  arose  by  appro- 
priate agents,  appointed  for  the  purpose.  However,  the  terms 
of  peace  are  likely  to  require  a  number  of  international 
obligations.  It  is  clear  that  the  Dardanelles  must  be  made 
open  to  the  peoples  of  the  world;  they  must  be  internation- 
alized. It  is  generally  believed  that  the  German  African 
colonies  should  not  be  returned  to  that  country.  With  the 
exception  of  Southwestern  Africa,  the  administration  of  these 
colonies  in  the  interest  of  their  peoples  might  well  become  an 


A    LEAGUE    OF    NATIONS  137 

international  obligation.  New  states  have  been  created  through 
the  disintegration  of  Russia  and  will  be  created  by  the  disinte- 
gration of  Austria.  It  will  be  necessary  that  these  states  have 
a  big  brother  to  assist  them  when  necessary  until  they  get  on 
their  feet,  precisely  as  the  United  States  served  as  a  big  brother 
for  Cuba  and  she  was  able  to  act  independently.  This  is  inter- 
national work.  It  seems  to  me  that  this  function  should  be  exer- 
cised directly  through  the  League  of  Free  Nations.  An  organi- 
zation shall  be  created  by  it  to  handle  international  responsibility 
in  the  interests  of  the  world.  This  will  involve  the  setting  up 
of  an  appropriate  government  in  each  case,  the  apportioning  of 
the  necessary  protection  and  the  allocation  of  the  required 
funds  among  the  members  of  the  League.  From  time  to  time, 
as  need  arises,  a  helping  hand  should  be  given,  but  always  with 
the  purpose  of  developing  a  province  exclusively  in  the  interests 
of  its  inhabitants,  and  finally  when  the  time  comes,  of  estab- 
lishing self-government.  This  passage  from  government  by  an 
instrument  of  the  League  of  Nations  to  self-government  in 
each  case  should  be  the  ultimate  goal. 

The  foregoing  discussion  assumes  that  the  United  States 
will  become  one  of  the  great  nations  of  the  Free  League.  This 
is  a  complete  abandonment  of  the  traditional  policy  of  isolation. 

Already  in  this  war  the  United  States  has  abandoned  the 
policy  of  isolation  and  has  acted  in  practical  alliance  with  the 
great  Powers  fighting  Germany.  It  is  true  that  the  President 
has  always  alluded  to  the  other  Powers  as  our  associates  in 
war  rather  than  as  our  allies;  but  in  every  respect  in  the  con- 
duct of  the  war  the  United  States  has  acted  precisely  as  have 
the  other  members  of  the  alliance.  Indeed,  the  United  States 
has  taken  leadership  in  making  the  alliance  stronger  and 
firmer  through  a  common  command  of  the  fighting  forces, 
through  cooperation  in  the  feeding  of  the  Allies  and  through 
the  apportionment  of  the  materials  of  war. 

In  the  second  place,  even  if  we  had  not  already  abandoned 
the  policy  of  isolation,  sooner  or  later  it  would  have  been 
necessary  to  do  so  under  the  conditions  of  the  modern  world. 
The  policy  may  have  been  wise  when  the  Atlantic  Ocean  was 
a  great  gulf  between  America  and  Europe.  Transportation 
and  communication  were  so  slow  that  the  United  States  could 
pursue  policies  independent  of  those  followed  in  Europe.    How- 


138  SELECTED   ARTICLES 

ever,  now  that  communication  is  instantaneous  and  transporta- 
tion so  rapid  that  goods  cross  the  Atlantic  in  less  than  a  week, 
and  the  trade  of  each  nation  depends  upon  materials  derived 
from  other  nations,  isolation  is  no  longer  possible.  The  world 
has  become  one  body,  and  no  great  member  of  it  can  proceed 
independently  of  the  other  members.  They  must  act  together; 
and  this  is  only  possible  through  formal  treaty  covenants. 

It  seems  clear  that  if  the  United  States  now  shirks  the 
responsibility  of  entering  the  League  of  Free  Nations,  it  is 
inevitable  that  some  time  in  the  future  she  will  again  be  obliged 
to  intervene  in  a  war  for  which  she  is  in  no  way  responsible 
and  the  initiation  of  which  she  had  no  means  to  control.  Be- 
cause of  the  intimate  international  relations,  if  a  world  con- 
flagration again  starts,  it  is  almost  inevitable  that  we  shall  be 
drawn  into  it  precisely  as  we  were  into  this. 

Finally,  it  should  be  pointed  out  that  the  proposal  to  join 
a  League  of  Free  Nations  is  fundamentally  different  from  join- 
ing an  alliance  of  the  kind  which  was  meant  when  the  doctrine 
of  avoiding  entangling  alliances  was  developed.  The  danger  of 
joining  an  alliance  is  that  this  alliance  will  get  into  an  armed 
conflict  with  another  alliance.  The  plan  of  balance  of  powers 
between  alliances  in  Europe,  we  know,  has  led  to  disastrous  wars 
from  time  to  time.  If  it  were  proposed  that  the  United  States 
should  enter  into  an  alliance  with  one  or  two  Powers  of  Europe, 
the  objection  would  hold  that  it  would  be  entering  into  an  en- 
tangling alliance;  but  the  proposal  is  that  the  United  States 
shall  enter  a  League  of  Free  Nations,  which  shall  at  the  out- 
set include  the  great  dominant  free  nations  and  which  shall 
finally  include  practically  all  nations.  This  is  not  an  alliance, 
but  a  step  toward  cooperative  world  organization,  and  there- 
fore World  Peace.  Not  only  should  the  United  States  enter 
the  League  of  Free  Nations,  but  she  should  take  the  position 
of  leadership  in  its  formation  to  which  she  is  entitled  from 
the  commanding  influence  which  she  is  exercising  at  the  pres- 
ent time  in  the  councils  of  the  world. 


A    LEAGUE    OF    NATIONS  139 

MEMORANDUM  ON  WAR  AIMS1 

THE  WAR 

I.  The  Inter-Allied  Conference  declares  that  whatever  may 
have  been  the  causes  of  the  outbreak  of  war  it  is  clear  that  the 
peoples  of  Europe,  who  are  necessarily  the  chief  sufferers  from 
its  horrors,  had  themselves  no  hand  in  it.  Their  common  inter- 
est is  now  so  to  conduct  the  terrible  struggle  in  which  they  find 
themselves  engaged  as  to  bring  it,  as  soon  as  may  be  possible, 
to  an  issue  in  a  secure  and  lasting  peace  for  the  world. 

The  Conference  sees  no  reason  to  depart  from  the  following 
declaration  unanimously  agreed  to  at  the  Conference  of  the 
Socialist  and  Labour  Parties  of  the  Allied  Nations  on  February 

14,  1915: 

"This  Conference  cannot  ignore  the  profound  general  causes 
of  the  European  conflict,  itself  a  monstrous  product  of  the  an- 
tagonisms which  tear  asunder  capitalist  society  and  of  the  policy 
of  Colonial  dependencies  and  aggressive  Imperialism,  against 
which  International  Socialism  has  never  ceased  to  fight,  and  in 
which  every  government  has  its  share  of  responsibility. 

"The  invasion  of  Belgium  and  France  by  the  German  armies 
threatens  the  very  existence  of  independent  nationalities  and 
strikes  a  blow  at  all  faith  in  treaties.  In  these  circumstances  a 
victory  for  German  Imperialism  would  be  the  defeat  and  the 
destruction  of  democracy  and  liberty  in  Europe.  The  Socialists 
of  Great  Britain,  Belgium,  France,  and  Russia  do  not  pursue 
the  political  and  economic  crushing  of  Germany;  they  are  not  at 
war  with  the  peoples  of  Germany  and  Austria,  but  only  with 
the  governments  of  those  countries  by  which  they  are  oppressed. 
They  demand  that  Belgium  shall  be  liberated  and  compensated. 
They  desire  that  the  question  of  Poland  shall  be  settled  in  ac- 
cordance with  the  wishes  of  the  Polish  people,  either  in  the 
sense  of  autonomy  in  the  midst  of  another  state,  or  in  that  of 
complete  independence.  They  wish  that  throughout  all  Europe, 
from   Alsace-Lorraine   to   the   Balkans,   those   populations   that 


1  Adopted  by  the  Inter-Allied  Labour  and  Socialist  Conference  in  Lon- 
don, February  22,  1-918.  •  Reprinted  from  the  London  Times,  February 
25,  1918. 


140  SELECTED   ARTICLES 

have  been  annexed  by  force  shall  receive  the  right  freely  to  dis- 
pose of  themselves. 

"While  inflexibly  resolved  to  fight  until  victory  is  achieved  to 
accomplish  this  task  of  liberation,  the  Socialists  are  none  the 
less  resolved  to  resist  any  attempt  to  transform  this  defensive 
war  into  a  war  of  conquest,  which  would  only  prepare  fresh 
conflicts,  create  new  grievances  and  subject  various  peoples 
more  than  ever  to  the  double  plague  of  armaments  and  war. 

"Satisfied  that  they  are  remaining  true  to  the  principles  of 
the  International,  the  members  of  the  Conference  express  the 
hope  that  the  working  classes  of  all  the  different  countries  will 
before  long  find  themselves  united  again  in  their  struggle 
against  militarism  and  capitalist  Imperialism.  The  victory  of 
the  Allied  Powers  must  be  a  victory  for  popular  liberty,  for 
unity,  independence,  and  autonomy  of  the  nations  in  the  peaceful 
federation  of  the  United  States  of  Europe  and  the  world." 

MAKING  THE  WORLD  SAFE  FOR  DEMOCRACY 

II.  Whatever  may  have  been  the  objects  for  which  the  war 
was  begun,  the  fundamental  purpose  of  the  Inter-Allied  Con- 
ference in  supporting  the  continuance  of  the  struggle  is  that  the 
world  may  henceforth  be  made  safe  for  democracy. 

Of  all  the  conditions  of  peace  none  is  so  important  to  the 
peoples  of  the  world  as  that  there  should  be  henceforth  on  earth 
no  more  war. 

Whoever  triumphs,  the  peoples  will  have  lost  unless  an  in- 
ternational system  is  established  which  will  prevent  war.  What 
would  it  mean  to  declare  the  right  of  peoples  to  self-determina- 
tion if  this  right  were  left  at  the  mercy  of  new  violations,  and 
was  not  protected  by  a  super-national  authority?  That  author- 
ity can  be  no  other  than  the  League  of  Nations,  in  which  not 
only  all  the  present  belligerents,  but  every  other  independent 
state,  should  be  pressed  to  join. 

The  constitution  of  such  a  League  of  Nations  implies  the 
immediate  establishment  of  an  International  High  Court,  not 
only  for  the  settlement  of  all  disputes  between  states  that  are  of 
justiciable  nature,  but  also  for  prompt  and  effective  mediation 
between  states  in  other  issues  that  vitally  interest  the  power  or 
honour  of  such  states.    It  is  also  under  the  control  of  the  League 


A    LEAGUE    OF    NATIONS  141 

of  Nations  that  the  consultation  of  peoples  for  purposes  of  self- 
determination  must  be  organized.  This  popular  right  can  be 
vindicated  only  by  popular  vote.  The  League  of  Nations  shall 
establish  the  procedure  of  international  jurisdiction,  fix  the 
methods  which  will  maintain  the  freedom  and  security  of  the 
election,  restore  the  political  rights  of  individuals  which  violence 
and  conquest  may  have  injured,  repress  any  attempt  to  use  pres- 
sure or  corruption,  and  prevent  any  subsequent  reprisals.  It  will 
be  also  necessary  to  form  an  International  Legislature,  in  which 
the  representatives  of  every  civilized  state  would  have  their 
allotted  share  and  energetically  to  push  forward,  step  by  step, 
the  development  of  international  legislation  agreed  to  by,  and 
definitely  binding  upon,  the  several  states. 

By  a  solemn  agreement  all  the  states  and  peoples  consulted 
shall  pledge  themselves  to  submit  every  issue  between  two  or 
more  of  them  for  settlement  as  aforesaid.  Refusal  to  accept 
arbitration  or  to  submit  to  the  settlement  will  imply  deliberate 
aggression,  and  all  the  nations  will  necessarily  have  to  make 
common  cause,  by  using  any  and  every  means  at  their  disposal, 
either  economical  or  military,  against  any  state  or  states  refus- 
ing to  submit  to  the  arbitration  award,  or  attempting  to  break 
the  world's  covenant  of  peace. 

But  the  sincere  acceptance  of  the  rules  and  decisions  of  the 
super-national  authority  implies  complete  democratization  in  all 
countries;  the  removal  of  all  the  arbitrary  powers  who,  until 
now,  have  assumed  the  right  of  choosing  between  peace  and 
war;  the  maintenance  or  creation  of  legislatures  elected  by  and 
on  behalf  of  the  sovereign  right  of  the  people;  the  suppression 
of  secret  diplomacy,  to  be  replaced  by  the  conduct  of  foreign 
policy  under  the  control  of  popular  legislatures,  and  the  pub- 
lication of  all  treaties,  which  must  never  be  in  contravention  of 
the  stipulation  of  the  League  of  Nations,  with  the  absolute  re- 
sponsibility of  the  Government,  and  more  particularly  of  the 
foreign  minister  of  each  country  to  its  Legislature. 

Only  such  a  policy  will  enforce  the  frank  abandonment  of 
every  form  of  Imperialism.  When  based  on  universal  democ- 
racy, in  a  world  in  which  effective  international  guarantees 
against  aggression  have  been  secured,  the  League  of  Nations 
will  achieve  the  complete  suppression  of  force  as  the  means  of 
settling  international  differences. 


142  SELECTED   ARTICLES 

The  League  of  Nations  in  order  to  prepare  for  the  con- 
certed abolition  of  compulsory  military  service  in  all  countries, 
must  first  take  steps  for  the  prohibition  of  fresh  armaments  on 
land  and  sea  and  for  the  common  limitation  of  the  existing 
armaments  by  which  all  the  peoples  are  burdened;  as  well  as 
the  control  of  war  manufactures  and  the  enforcement  of  such 
agreements  as  may  be  agreed  to  thereupon.  The  states  must 
undertake  such  manufactures  themselves,  so  as  entirely  to  abol- 
ish profit-making  armament  firms,  whose  pecuniary  interest  lies 
always  in  the  war  scares  and  progressive  competition  in  the 
preparation  for  war. 

The  nations,  being  armed  solely  for  self-defence  and  for 
such  action  as  the  League  of  Nations  may  ask  them  to  take  in 
defence  of  international  right,  will  be  left  free,  under  interna- 
tional control  either  to  create  a  voluntarily  recruited  force  or  to 
organize  the  nation  for  defence  without  professional  armies  for 
long  terms  of  military  service. 

To  give  effect  to  the  above  principles,  the  Inter-Allied  Con- 
ference declares  that  the  rules  upon  which  the  League  of  Nations 
will  be  founded  must  be  included  in  the  Treaty  of  Peace,  and 
will  henceforward  become  the  basis  of  the  settlement  of  differ- 
ences. In  that  spirit  the  Conference  expresses  its  agreement 
with  the  propositions  put  forward  by  President  Wilson  in  his 
last  message : 

i.  That  each  part  of  the  final  settlement  must  be  based  upon 
the  essential  justice  of  that  particular  case,  and  upon  such  ad- 
justments as  are  most  likely  to  bring  a  peace  that  will  be  per- 
manent. 

2.  That  peoples  and  provinces  are  not  to  be  bartered  about 
from  sovereignty  to  sovereignty  as  if  they  were  mere  chattels 
and  pawns  in  a  game,  even  the  great  game  now  forever  dis- 
credited of  the  balance  of  power;  but  that 

3.  Every  territorial  settlement  involved  in  this  war  must  be 
made  in  the  interest  and  for  the  benefit  of  the  populations  con- 
cerned, and  not  as  a  part  of  any  mere  adjustment  or  com- 
promise of  claims  amongst  rival  states. 

4.  That  all  well-defined  national  aspirations  shall  be  ac- 
corded the  utmost  satisfaction  that  can  be  accorded  them  with- 
out introducing  new  or  perpetuating  old   elements  of  discord 


A    LEAGUE    OF    NATIONS  143 

and  antagonism  that  would  be  likely  in  time  to  break  the  peace 
of  Europe  and,  consequently,  of  the  world. 

TERRITORIAL  QUESTIONS 

III.  The  Inter-Allied  Conference  considers  that  the  procla- 
mation of  principles  of  international  law  accepted  by  all  nations, 
and  the  substitution  of  a  regular  procedure  for  the  forceful  acts 
by  which  states  calling  themselves  sovereign  have  hitherto  ad- 
justed their  differences — in  short,  the  establishment  of  a  League 
of  Nations — gives  an  entirely  new  aspect  to  territorial  problems. 
The  old  diplomacy  and  the  yearnings  after  domination  by 
states,  or  even  by  peoples,  which  during  the  whole  of  the  nine- 
teenth century  have  taken  advantage  of  and  corrupted  the  as- 
pirations of  nationalities,  have  brought  Europe  to  a  condition 
of  anarchy  and  disorder  which  have  led  inevitably  to  the  present 
catastrophe. 

The  Conference  declares  it  to  be  the  duty  of  the  Labour  and 
Socialist  Movement  to  suppress  without  hesitation  the  Imperial- 
ist designs  in  the  various  states  which  have  led  one  Government 
after  another  to  seek,  by  the  triumph  of  military  force,  to  ac- 
quire either  new  territories  or  economic  advantages. 

The  establishment  of  a  system  of  international  law  and  the 
guarantees  afforded  by  a  League  of  Nations,  ought  to  remove 
the  last  excuse  for  those  strategic  protections  which  nations  have 
hitherto  felt  bound  to  require. 

It  is  the  supreme  principle  of  the  right  of  each  people  to  de- 
termine its  own  destiny  that  must  now  decide  what  steps  should 
be  taken  by  way  of  restitution  or  reparation,  and  whatever  ter- 
ritorial readjustments  may  be  found  to  be  necessary  at  the  close 
of  the  present  war. 

The  Conference  accordingly  emphasizes  the  importance  to 
the  Labour  and  Socialist  Movement  of  a  clear  and  exact  defini- 
tion of  what  is  meant  by  the  right  of  each  people  to  determine 
its  own  destiny.  Neither  destiny  of  race  nor  identity  of  lan- 
guage can  be  regarded  as  affording  more  than  a  presumption  in 
favor  of  federation  or  unification.  During  the  nineteenth  cen- 
tury, theories  of  this  kind  have  so  often  served  as  a  cloak  for 
aggression  that  the  International  cannot  but  seek  to  prevent  any 
recurrence  of  such  an  evil.    Any  adjustments  of  boundaries  that 


144  SELECTED   ARTICLES 

become  necessary  must  be  based  exclusively  upon  the  desire  of 
the  people  concerned. 

It  is  true  that  it  is  impossible  for  the  necessary  consultation 
of  the  desires  of  the  people  concerned  to  be  made  in  any  fixed 
and  invariable  way  for  all  the  cases  in  which  it  is  required,  and 
that  the  problems  of  nationality  and  territory  are  not  the  same 
for  the  inhabitants  of  all  countries.  Nevertheless,  what  is  neces- 
sary in  all  cases  is  that  the  procedure  to  be  adopted  should  be 
decided,  not  by  one  of  the  parties  to  the  dispute,  but  by  the 
super-national  authority. 


ECONOMIC  RELATIONS 

IV.  The  Inter-Allied  Conference  declares  against  all  the 
projects  now  being  prepared  by  Imperialists  and  capitalists,  not 
in  any  one  country  only,  but  in  most  countries,  for  an  economic 
war,  after  peace  has  been  secured,  either  against  one  or  other 
foreign  nation  or  against  all  foreign  nations,  as  such  an  eco- 
nomic war,  if  begun  by  any  country,  would  inevitably  lead  to 
reprisals,  to  which  each  nation  in  turn  might  in  self-defence  be 
driven.  The  main  lines  of  marine  communication  should  be 
open  without  hindrance  to  vessels  of  all  nations  under  the  pro- 
tection of  the  League  of  Nations.  The  Conference  realizes  that 
all  attempts  at  economic  aggression,  whether  by  protective  tariffs 
or  capitalist  trusts  or  monopolies,  inevitably  result  in  the  spolia- 
tion of  the  working  classes  of  the  several  countries  for  the  profit 
of  the  capitalists ;  and  the  working  class  see  in  the  alliance  be- 
tween the  Military  Imperialists  and  the  Fiscal  Protectionists  in 
any  country  whatsoever  not  only  a  serious  danger  to  the  pros- 
perity of  the  masses  of  the  people,  but  also  a  grave  menace  to 
peace.  On  the  other  hand,  the  right  of  each  nation  to  the  de- 
fence of  its  own  economic  interests,  and  in  face  of  the  world- 
shortage  hereinafter  mentioned,  to  the  conservation  for  its  own 
people  of  a  sufficiency  of  its  own  supplies  of  foodstuffs  and  raw 
materials,  cannot  be  denied.  The  Conference  accordingly  urges 
upon  the  Labour  and  Socialist  Parties  of  all  countries,  the  im- 
portance of  insisting,  in  the  attitude  of  the  Government  toward 
commercial  enterprise,  along  with  the  necessary  control  of  sup- 
plies for  its  own  people,  on  the  principle  of  the  open  door,  and 


A    LEAGUE    OF    NATIONS  145 

without  hostile  discrimination  against  foreign  countries.  But  it 
urges  equally  the  importance,  not  merely  of  conservation,  but 
also  of  the  utmost  possible  development,  by  appropriate  Govern- 
ment action,  of  the  resources  of  every  country  for  the  benefit 
not  only  of  its  own  people  but  also  of  the  world,  and  the  need 
for  an  international  agreement  for  the  enforcement  in  all  coun- 
tries of  the  legislation  on  factory  conditions,  a  maximum  eight- 
hour  day,  the  prevention  of  "sweating"  and  unhealthy  trades 
necessary  to  protect  the  workers  against  exploitation  and  op- 
pression, and  the  prohibition  of  night  work  by  women  and  chil- 
dren. 

THE  PROBLEMS  OF  PEACE 

V.  To  make  the  world  safe  for  democracy  involves  much 
more  than  the  prevention  of  war,  either  military  or  economic. 
It  will  be  a  device  of  the  capitalist  interests  to  pretend  that  the 
Treaty  of  Peace  need  concern  itself  only  with  the  cessation  of 
the  struggles  of  the  armed  forces  and  with  any  necessary  terri- 
torial readjustments.  The  Inter- Allied  Conference  insists  that 
in  view  of  the  probable  world-wide  shortage,  after  the  war,  of 
exportable  foodstuffs  and  raw  materials,  and  of  merchant  ship- 
ping, it  is  imperative,  in  order  to  prevent  the  most  serious  hard- 
ships, and  even  possible  famine,  in  one  country  or  another,  that 
systematic  arrangements  should  be  made  on  an  international 
basis  for  the  allocation  and  conveyance  of  the  available  ex- 
portable surpluses  of  these  commodities  to  the  different  coun- 
tries, in  proportion,  not  to  their  purchasing  powers,  but  to  their 
several  pressing  needs;  and  that,  within  each  country,  the 
Government  must  for  some  time  maintain  its  control  of  the 
most  indispensable  commodities,  in  order  to  secure  their  appro- 
priation, not  in  a  competitive  market  mainly  to  the  richer  classes 
in  proportion  to  their  means,  but,  systematically,  to  meet  the 
most  urgent  needs  of  the  whole  community  on  the  principle  of 
"no  cake  for  anyone  until  all  have  bread." 

Moreover,  it  cannot  but  be  anticipated  that,  in  all  countries, 
the  dislocation  of  industry  attendant  on  peace,  the  instant  dis- 
charge of  millions  of  munition  makers  and  workers  in  war 
trades,  and  the  demobilization  of  millions  of  soldiers — in  the 
face  of  the  scarcity  of  industrial  capital,  the  shortage  of  raw 
materials,  and  the  insecurity  of  commercial  enterprise — will,  un- 


146  SELECTED   ARTICLES 

less  prompt  and  energetic  action  be  taken  by  the  several  Govern- 
ments, plunge  a  large  part  of  the  wage-earning  population  into 
all  the  miseries  of  unemployment  more  or  less  prolonged.  In 
view  of  the  fact  that  widespread  unemployment  in  any  country, 
like  a  famine,  is  an  injury  not  to  that  country  alone,  but  im- 
poverishes also  the  rest  of  the  world,  the  Conference  holds  that 
it  is  the  duty  of  every  Government  to  take  immediate  action,  not 
merely  to  relieve  the  unemployed,  when  unemployment  has  set 
in,  but  actually,  so  far  as  may  be  practicable,  to  prevent  the  oc- 
currence of  unemployment.  It  therefore  urges  upon  the  Labour 
Parties  of  every  country  the  necessity  of  their  pressing  upon 
their  Governments  the  preparation  of  plans  for  the  execution  of 
all  the  innumerable  public  works  (such  as  the  making  and  re- 
paring  of  roads,  railways  and  waterways,  the  erection  of 
schools,  and  public  buildings,  the  provision  of  working-class 
dwellings  and  the  reclamation  and  afforestation  of  land)  that 
will  be  required  in  the  near  future,  not  for  the  sake  of  finding 
measures  of  relief  for  the  unemployed,  but  with  a  view  to  these 
works  being  undertaken  at  such  a  rate  in  each  locality  as  will 
suffice,  together  with  the  various  capitalist  enterprises  that  may 
be  in  progress,  to  maintain  at  a  fairly  uniform  level  year  by 
year,  and  throughout  each  year,  the  aggregate  demand  for  la- 
bour; and  thus  prevent  there  being  any  unemployed.  It  is  now 
known  that  in  this  way  it  is  quite  possible  for  any  Government 
to  prevent,  if  it  chooses,  the  occurrence  of  any  widespread  or 
prolonged  involuntary  unemployment;  which  if  it  is  now  in  any 
country  allowed  to  occur,  is  as  much  the  result  of  Government 
neglect  as  is  any  epidemic  disease. 

RESTORATION  OF  THE  DEVASTATED  AREAS 
AND   REPARATION   OF   WRONGDOING 

VI.  The  Inter-Allied  Conference  holds  that  one  of  the  most 
imperative  duties  of  all  countries  immediately  peace  is  declared 
will  be  the  restoration,  so  far  as  may  be  possible,  of  the  homes, 
farms,  factories,  public  buildings,  and  means  of  communication 
whatever  destroyed  by  war  operations;  that  the  restoration 
should  not  be  limited  to  compensation  for  public  buildings,  cap- 
italist undertakings  and  material  property  proved  to  be  destroyed 
or  damaged,  but  should  be  extended  to   setting  up  the  wage 


A    LEAGUE    OF    NATIONS  147 

earners  and  peasants  themselves  in  homes  and  employment;  and 
that  to  ensure  the  full  and  impartial  application  of  these  princi- 
ples the  assessment  and  distribution  of  the  compensation,  so  far 
as  the  cost  is  contributed  by  any  international  fund,  should  be 
made  under  the  direction  of  an  International  Commission. 

The  Conference  will  not  be  satisfied  unless  there  is  a  full  and 
free  judicial  investigation  into  the  accusations  made  on  all  sides 
that  particular  Governments  have  ordered,  and  particular  officers 
have  exercised,  acts  of  cruelty,  oppression,  violence  and  theft 
against  individual  victims,  for  which  no  justification  can  be 
found  in  the  ordinary  usages  of  war.  It  draws  attention  in 
particular  to  the  loss  of  life  and  property  of  merchant  seamen 
and  other  non-combatants  (including  women  and  children)  re- 
sulting from  this  inhuman  and  ruthless  conduct.  It  should  be 
part  of  the  conditions  of  peace  that  there  should  be  forthwith 
set  up  a  Court  of  Claims  and  Accusations,  which  should  inves- 
tigate all  such  allegations  as  may  be  brought  before  it,  summon 
the  accused  person  or  Government  to  answer  the  complaint,  pro- 
nounce judgment,  and  award  compensation  or  damages,  payable 
by  the  individual  or  Government  condemned,  to  the  persons  who 
had  suffered  wrong,  or  to  their  dependents.  The  several 
Governments  must  be  responsible,  financially  and  otherwise,  for 
the  presentation  of  the  cases  of  their  respective  nationals  to  such 
a  Court  of  Claims  and  Accusations,  and  for  the  payment  of  the 
compensation  awarded. 


LABOR  AND  THE  LEAGUE  OF  NATIONS1 

It  is  my  purpose  here  to  consider  in  the  light  of  labor's  de- 
mands and  of  existing  facts  in  the  world  of  international  events 
the  one  big  constructive  suggestion  which  the  world  has  now  to 
work  upon — the  idea  of  a  league  of  nations.  Labor  is  lending 
earnest  support  to  the  proposal  for  a  league.  Yet,  oddly  enough, 
despite  the  widespread  and  almost  sudden  popularity  which  this 
idea  has  attained,  it  is  still  a  somewhat  tentative  and  nebulous 
one.  It  still  suffers  from  too  great  a  generality  of  statement. 
Until  it  is  removed  from  the  realm  of  the  abstract,  until  the  con- 

1  By  Ordway  Tead,  member  of  the  firm  of  Valentine,  Tead  &  Gregg, 
Industrial  Counselors,  and  a  contributor  to  various  economic  journals.  In- 
ternational Conciliation.     No.  131:533-42.     October,  1918. 


148  SELECTED    ARTICLES 

ception  of  the  society  of  nations  is  broadened  to  include  some- 
thing more  than  political  functions  and  interests,  there  is  grave 
danger  that  the  idea  may  prove  an  impractical  instrument  of 
genuine  democratic  internationalism,  in  exactly  the  same  way 
that  the  nineteenth  century  state  proved  ill-adapted  to  effective 
democratic  national  control. 

As  endorsed  by  the  inter-allied  workers  the  idea  contemplates 
the  immediate  establishment  "actually  as  a  part  of  the  treaty  of 
peace  with  which  the  present  war  will  end,  of  a  universal  league 
or  society  of  nations,  a  supernational  authority,  with  an  inter- 
national high  court  to  try  all  justiciable  issues  between  nations. 
.  .  ."  But  what  these  justiciable  issues  are,  upon  what  matters 
the  "international  legislature"  should  legislate — these  are  vital 
questions  for  which  no  answers  are  suggested.  Nor  has  there 
been  any  public  attempt  to  relate  these  plans  for  supernational 
political  machinery  to  labor's  industrial  program.  Indeed,  there 
has  been  an  almost  complete  hiatus  between  the  thinking  regard- 
ing the  political  structure  involved  in  a  league  of  nations  and 
the  economic  functions  which  it  is  becoming  increasingly  obvi- 
ous, the  league  must  assume.  Labor  has  urged  a  league  with  an 
organization  patterned  on  familiar  political  forms.  Yet  it  also 
demands  in  the  next  breath  an  international  control  over  com- 
modities and  materials  for  which  conventional  political  govern- 
ment offers  no  analogies  and  no  clues.  Can  the  democratically 
minded  workers  achieve  any  reconciliation  between  the  ideas  of 
a  political  and  economic  internationalism?  Does  the  league  of 
nations  offer  any  ground  for  such  a  reconciliation? 

It  is  largely  the  popular  over-emphasis  of  the  political  an- 
alogies which  gives  point  to  the  objection  that  the  projected 
world  society  appears  to  contemplate  no  definite  job.  Yet, 
clearly,  if  it  is  to  make  good,  the  league  requires  specific  func- 
tions. Any  organization  possessing  vitality  has  come  into  being 
only  in  response  to  a  need  recognized  and  pondered  until  some 
cooperative  way  of  meeting  it  is  seen.  Demand  for  the  per- 
formance of  a  function  is  the  only  valid  occasion  for  the  crea- 
tion of  a  body  to  perform  it.  Of  international  organizations 
this  is  especially  true.  To  be  successful  they  must  be  functional 
in  character — that  is,  they  must  exist  in  response  to  a  felt  need 
and  be  so  constituted  as  to  meet  that  need.  This  is  a  simple 
truth;  but  it  can  be  of  immense  value  in  helping  to  keep  our 


A    LEAGUE    OF    NATIONS  149 

thinking  on  international  problems  clear.  If  we  hold  this  truth 
in  view,  we  can  get  the  right  perspective  on  organizations  and 
can  be  on  our  guard  against  those  with  resonant  names  but 
vague  duties. 

But  the  league  of  nations,  it  is  popularly  supposed,  will  be 
charged  with  the  duty  of  enforcing  peace.  As  Mr.  Wells  puts 
it,  there  is  a  "plain  necessity"  for  a  universal  society  as  a  con- 
dition of  organizing  the  world  for  peace.  Yet  whether  or  not 
"keeping  the  peace"  involves  a  concrete  program  and  definite 
activities  is  still  not  a  matter  of  wide  agreement.  Certainly,  as 
we  have  construed  it  in  political  and  diplomatic  affairs  down 
to  the  present  the  peace-keeping  job  is  very  much  in  the  air, 
related  to  a  thousand  projects  and  policies,  but  having  no  single 
and  genuine  rallying  point  of  its  own.  In  existing  institutions 
the  task  generally  characterized  as  "preserving  the  peace"  is 
largely  a  negative  one.  No  one  would  seriously  suggest,  for 
example,  that  the  municipal  court  by  virtue  of  its  function  of 
maintaining  order  provides  the  cohesive  force  which  holds  the 
local  community  together.  There  are  a  thousand  local  functions 
more  indispensable,  more  vitally  contributory  to  the  preserva- 
tion of  law  and  peace.  In  reality,  it  is  through  the  administra- 
tion of  health,  education,  municipal  training  and  the  various 
local  utilities  which  are  urgently  required  by  common  necessity 
that  the  local  community  is  unified  and  stabilized. 

Internationally,  it  is  equally  true  that  functions  upon  which 
common  necessity  dictates  cooperation  are  the  ones  for  which 
the  nations  should  provide  joint  organizations.  This  is  in  line 
with  the  war's  great  lesson :  that  peace  is  best  maintained  not  so 
much  by  efforts  to  keep  the  peace  as  by  common  efforts  to  solve 
the  problems  that  provoke  the  nations  to  war.  If,  as  a  recent 
writer  observes,  "all  nations  act  from  self  interest,"  it  is  only 
honest  moral  economy  to  entrust  to  supernational  bodies  definite 
tasks  in  the  performance  of  which  each  nation  is  undeniably 
and  permanently  interested.  Where  the  common  self-interest  of 
each  country  is  best  served  by  common  participation  in  the  solv- 
ing of  common  problems,  can  we  afford  not  to  act  together? 
Can  labor  after  the  sacrifices  of  the  war  stop  short  of  demanding 
bodies  on  a  world-wide  basis  to  which  some  more  positive  work 
than  the  maintenance  of  peace  is  assigned? 

If  there  is  doubt  concerning  the  reality  of  the  function  popu- 
larly attributed  to  a  league  of  nations,  it  can  be  removed  only 


150  SELECTED   ARTICLES 

by  clarifying  the  statement  of  the  function.  The  world's  prob- 
lem becomes  one  of  discovering  what  issues  require  international 
action  to  ensure  national  salvation.  Such  necessitous  problems 
are  obviously  to  a  large  extent  economic  in  character.  They 
relate  to  food  supply  and  sustenance.  Concerning  precisely  in 
what  difficulties  cooperative  action  is  imperative  and  isolation 
equivalent  to  starvation,  is  therefore  a  subject  for  close  analysis 
by  the  members  of  a  society  of  nations. 

In  line  with  this  conclusion  is  the  recent  statement  of  Pro- 
fessor Gilbert  Murray  concerning  after-war  problems.  "There 
will  not,"  he  says,  "be  enough  food  and  there  will  not  be  enough 
shipping.  .  .  .  We  must,  to  some  extent,  pool  our  ships  and 
pool  our  food  supply.  And  those  who  do  not  join  the  pool  will 
starve.  I  think  there  will  have  to  be  a  great  and  drastic  inter- 
national association — a  vast  Hoover  commission — to  which  the 
various  state  governments  will  have  to  bow  under  pain  of  their 
people's  starvation." 

Two  other  important  considerations  regarding  the  league  of 
nations  may  appear  at  first  sight  to  be  somewhat  metaphysical. 
Actually,  however,  both  have  very  practical  bearings  and  conse- 
quences. As  Professor  Seignobos  says  in  The  New  Europe,1 
the  league  of  nations  is  a  "translation  into  international  terms 
of  the  doctrine  of  the  social  contract."  The  doctrine  of  the  so- 
cial contract  was  formulated  to  explain  how  people  became  as- 
sociated together  under  systematic  governments.  It  stresses  the 
idea  of  a  deliberate  rational  intention  shared  by  a  group  of 
people,  as  the  actuating  motive  in  the  creation  of  government. 
It  minimizes  the  element  of  a  common  necessity.  The  Pilgrims 
signing  the  compact  in  the  cabin  of  the  Mayflower  have  become 
the  classic  example  of  this  theoretical  explanation  of  the  origin 
of  constitutionalism  in  a  conscious  act  of  thought  and  will. 

Yet  this  example  rightly  interpreted  illustrates  the  exact  op- 
posite of  the  social  contract  theory.  Actually  it  illustrates  the 
fact  that  some  common  necessity,  some  situation  in  which  the 
interests  of  each  are  best  served  by  common  action,  is  the  real 
occasion  of  the  signing  of  a  common  contract — is  the  real  occa- 
sion for  organized  group  activity.  The  Pilgrims  did  not  say :  Go 
to  now,  let  us  have  a  government.  Their  thought  was  rather: 
How  can  we  best  secure  common  loyalty,  joint  protection,  as- 

1  Seignobos,  The  New  Europe,  vol.  vi,  No.  77> 


A    LEAGUE    OF    NATIONS  151 

sured  stability  in  the  conduct  of  those  affairs  which  interest  us 
all?  Similarly,  if  the  league  of  nations  is  to  be  built  on  no 
deeper  foundation  than  the  deliberate  rational  intentions  of  the 
several  nations — no  matter  how  good  those  intentions  are — it 
will  partake  of  the  same  unreality  which  vitiates  the  social  con- 
tract theory  itself.  Good  intentions,  rationally  conceived  plans 
of  things  that  ought  to  be — these  are  not  the  groundwork  on 
which  a  sound  and  permanent  superstructure  of  internationalism 
can  be  reared.  If  there  are  to  be  contracts  and  if  contracts  are 
to  have  force  and  effect,  the  ties  that  bind  must  be  ties  of  neces- 
sity, of  common  need,  of  joint  gain  and  advantage  by  the  up- 
holding of  the  contracts. 

Again,  the  stressing  by  all  the  advocates  of  a  league  of  na- 
tions of  the  demand  for  a  "supernational  authority"  has  in  it 
serious  elements  of  risk.  It  is  one  thing  to  say  that  with  respect 
to  any  particular  issue  which  arises  between  nations  there  should 
be  some  one  body  to  which  final  appeal  in  those  special  matters 
may  be  taken.  It  is  quite  another  thing  to  say  that  with  respect 
to  all  issues,  all  appeal  should  be  to  one  great,  supreme  "Inter- 
national High  Court."  We  know,  as  Professor  Seignobos  has 
phrased  it,  that  "modern  civilized  states  are  founded  on  the  idea 
of  national  sovereignty  which,  in  naked  terms,  is  simply  the 
legalization  of  the  force  possessed  by  the  respective  govern- 
ments." We  have  seen  the  uses  and  abuses  to  which  that  force 
can  be  put  in  the  hands  of  states,  whether  they  be  nominally 
democratic  or  nominally  autocratic.  Labor,  especially  in  Eng- 
land, has  lately  come  to  have  a  strong  antipathy  for  the  degree 
of  centralized  responsibility  which  the  absolute  sovereignty  of 
the  state  entails.  The  organized  workers  the  world  over  have 
come  to  fear  the  state  to  the  extent  that  the  state  means  not 
common  action  for  the  common  good  but  rather  action  enforced 
upon  the  people  by  a  dominant  governing  group  (regardless  of 
how  that  group  gets  its  power).  Claims  of  absolutism,  of  final 
authority  and  ultimate  power  arc  as  inimical  to  personal  freedom 
and  growth  when  they  are  made  in  behalf  of  states  as  when 
made  in  behalf  of  churches  or  institutions  of  any  kind. 

For  these  reasons  the  practice  of  absolute  sovereignty  and 
faith  in  it  are  everywhere  on  the  wane.  The  power  of  the  state, 
as  state,  promises  to  decline  as  power  for  public  and  social  con- 
trol is  better  organized  through  functional  and  more  or  less  vol- 
untary groups. 


152  SELECTED   ARTICLES 

Yet  in  the  face  of  this  tendency  people  are  proposing — and 
labor  is  supporting  the  idea — not  alone  to  have  one  supreme 
source  of  authority  in  international  matters,  but  to  enforce  its 
decrees  by  the  use  of  an  overwhelming  aggrandizement  of  inter- 
nationalized force.  This  idea  gets  its  clear  acknowledgement  in 
the  title  of  the  League  to  Enforce  Peace.  I  repeat  that  as  re- 
spects any  one  question  over  territorial  divisions  or  matters  of 
economic  adjustment  between  nations  it  may  be  necessary  and 
practical  to  create  a  temporary  umpire  to  secure  adjustment. 
But  it  is  a  fair  question  whether  the  transfer  of  absolutism  in 
sovereignty  from  the  state  to  the  super-state  (which  is  what  the 
proposal  for  a  highly  centralized  league  to  enforce  peace  really 
comes  to)  would  not  be  paying  too  dearly  for  a  very  doubtful 
gain. 

Mr.  G.  D.  H.  Cole  in  his  "Self  Government  in  Industry"  pro- 
poses that  within  the  state  the  problem  of  adjusting  the  claims 
of  sovereignty  to  the  claims  of  personality  can  be  solved  by 
dividing  sovereignty  between  the  supreme  organization  of  the 
nation  in  its  producing  capacity  (an  industrial  parliament)  and 
the  supreme  organization  of  the  consumers  (the  present  political 
parliaments).  If  issues  come  to  a  deadlock  between  these  two 
groups,  the  only  recourse,  as  he  conceives  it,  is  to  effect  what- 
ever ultimate  adjustment  is  possible  without  an  appeal  to  force. 
In  the  contest  for  power  between  the  state  as  producer  and  the 
state  as  consumer,  the  individual  gets  his  chance  to  preserve 
and  advance  the  claims  of  personality  and  freedom.  Perhaps 
this  approach  has  its  suggestion  for  our  thinking  in  international 
affairs.  Certainly  it  is  becoming  daily  clearer  that  if  interna- 
tional government  means  the  re-establishment  of  absolute  sov- 
ereignty on  a  basis  twice  removed  from  popular  control,  the 
weakness  of  that  government  will  be  fundamental  and  the  al- 
legiance it  can  summon  will  diminish  as  soon  as  its  exercise  of 
power  becomes  significant. 

But  let  no  one  imagine  that  for  these  reasons  the  league  of 
nations  is  an  impractical  suggestion.  The  foregoing  discussion 
has  attempted  only  to  point  to  the  dangers  inherent  in  the  popu- 
lar understanding  of  the  idea.  The  central  notion  of  joint  action 
on  those  problems  which  the  nations  share  and  which  can  find 
no  solution  in  the  absence  of  joint  action  is  fundamental.  I  am 
only  asking  for  a  slight  shift  in  emphasis  in  our  thinking  about 
the  league.    The  task  really  is  to  find  the  problems  upon  which 


A    LEAGUE    OF    NATIONS  153 

the  nations  admit  the  need  for  joint  action,  and  to  advocate  the 
creation  of  supernational  bodies  which  are  adapted  to  solving 
each  particular  problem  in  question,  whether  it  be,  for  example, 
distribution  of  the  world's  wheat  or  fertilizer  supply,  the  pro- 
tection of  patents  and  copyrights,  a  reserve  board  to  administer 
an  international  gold  clearance  fund,  the  framing  of  uniform 
labor  laws  for  the  nations,  or  the  adjustment  of  territorial 
boundaries. 

The  league  of  nations  will  be  effective,  real  and  successful  to 
the  extent  that  it  directs  its  attention  to  analyzing  the  common 
needs  of  the  nations  and  to  instituting  functional  organizations 
of  administration  and  control.  This  is  its  first  important  work. 
Far  from  being  without  function,  the  league  has  this  indispen- 
sable task.  It  must  set  up  under  sound  representative  control 
agencies  calculated  to  solve  the  problems  upon  which  the  nations 
must  cooperate  if  they  are  to  be  solved  at  all. 

This  brings  us,  I  believe,  to  a  point  of  definite  intersection 
between  the  idea  of  an  international  political  structure  and  the 
demand  for  world  control  of  economic  matters  like  raw  ma- 
terials and  shipping.  The  workers  will  find  in  the  league  an 
instrument  of  control  in  the  economic  sphere  which  will  give 
abundant  promise  of  vital  social  usefulness.  They  may  even  find 
that,  in  demanding  genuine  international  control  over  the  dif- 
ficult matters  of  industrial  readjustment,  they  are  in  that  way 
best  effecting  the  creation  of  a  society  of  nations.  This  society 
may  very  possibly  grow  first  out  of  the  agencies  of  economic 
control  which  the  war  has  brought  and  only  afterwards  come  to 
take  on  the  desirable  attribute  of  a  political  superstate. 

But  should  this  happen,  labor  will  have  to  be  zealously  on 
guard  against  two  dangers.  It  must  be  sure  that  these  interna- 
tional agencies  are  absolutely  above  any  suspicion  of  maintaining 
or  erecting  economic  barriers.  And,  in  order  to  have  assurance 
on  this  first  point,  if  must  be  certain  that  the  national  repre- 
sentation on  these  world  bodies  is  genuinely  in  the  national  in- 
terest, and  not  in  the  interest  of  special  privileged  groups  in  any 
of  the  affected  countries. 

Whatever  world  organization  is  projected,  there  can  be  no 
deep-rooted  and  abiding  peace  and  good  will  among  the  nations 
in  the  absence  of  a  definite  motive  to  administer,  as  the  workers 
have  finely  said,  "the  resources  of  every  country  for  the  benefit 
not  only  of  its  own  people,  but  also  of  the  world." 


r54  SELECTED   ARTICLES 


THE  STRUCTURE  OF  LASTING  PEACE x 

Why  the  constitution  of  a  league  of  nations  ought  to  be  the 
first  proposition  in  the  agenda  of  the  peace  conference  should  be 
obvious  enough.  Once  certain  principles  of  public  law  are  es- 
tablished, the  adjudication  of  all  specific  racial,  territorial,  eco- 
nomic, and  military  issues  will  follow  easily  and  smoothly 
enough  from  them.  The  converse  is  not  true.  Let  these  issues 
be  taken  up  severally  and  separately,  without  regard  to  an  inter- 
national rule,  and  the  peace  conference  will  become  a  bargain 
counter  between  dickering  diplomats  representing  military 
forces.  The  specific  adjudications  will  preclude  a  general  prin- 
ciple which  must  necessarily  contradict  them.  At  best  we  shall 
have  restored  a  precarious  balance  of  power;  at  worst  we  shall 
resume  fighting.  If  the  peace  conference  be  permitted  to  begin 
at  the  wrong  end  of  the  series  of  problems,  there  is  little  hope 
for  a  good  end  to  the  conference. 

Whether  or  not  it  begins  at  the  right  end  will  depend  on  two 
factors.  These  are  the  pressure  of  enlightened  public  opinion 
upon  it  and  the  personnel  of  the  conference  itself.  The  former 
must  be  awakened  by  free  discussions;  the  later  will  be  de- 
termined by  the  manner  of  their  choice  and  the  considerations 
leading  to  it.  In  this  regard  the  experience  of  the  "sovereign 
and  independent"  American  states  is  illuminating.  At  the 
Constitutional  Convention  the  only  statesman  who  had  also  been 
a  member  of  the  Continental  Congress  that  had  conducted  the 
war  against  England,  was  James  Madison.  The  rest  were  "demi- 
gods" who  had  won  the  confidence  of  the  citizens  of  their  states 
through  very  specific  and  signal  service  during  the  war  or 
through  intellectual  leadership  during  and  after  it.  So  now. 
Diplomatists  are  by  training,  habit,  and  usage  unfit  for  the  par- 
ticular service  in  hand.  Servants  of  international  conflict  for 
exclusive  national  advantage,  their  skill  is  only  in  the  arts  of  in- 
nuendo and  dickering  which  such  service  demands.  They  would 
be  as  unsuited  to  a  task  requiring  frankness  and  mutual  ac- 
commodation as  a  pork-magnate  to  settle  a  strike  in  his  own 
packing  plant.     The  men  needed  are  the  men  of  international 

1  By  Horace  Meyer  Kallen,  author  of  "The  Structure  of  Lasting  Peace," 
published  by  the  Marshall  Jones  Co.,  Boston.  1918.  Dial.  p.  180.  Feb- 
ruary 28,  19 18. 


A    LEAGUE    OF    NATIONS  155 

mind,  who  have  been  studying  these  diplomatists  in  action,  who 
are  aware  of  the  detects  of  present  state  system,  and  who  have 
thought  out  alterations  and  improvements.  Such  men  are  Sidney 
Webb,  Brailsford,  Henderson,  Lowes  Dickinson,  Norman  Angell 
in  England;  Thomas  and  his  fellow  Socialists  in  France;  the 
members  of  the  present  Russian  government  and  innumerable 
others  in  Russia;  John  Dewey,  Louis  Brandeis,  Secretary  Baker, 
David  Starr  Jordan,  and  Tharsten  Veblen  in  America.  And  so 
in  every  country.  Representatives  should  be  chosen  from  the 
effective  leadership  of  that  great  body  of  sentiment  and  opinion 
which  has  for  the  last  quarter  of  a  century  kept  the  creation  of 
a  league  of  nations  and  the  establishment  of  lasting  peace  con- 
stantly before  the  minds  of  men,  which  has  so  taught  these  ideals 
that  the  present  war  is  unique  in  that  the  democratic  urge  to  see 
it  through  to  victory  is  the  community  of  sentiment  and  opinion 
against  all  war.  In  short,  a  league  of  nations  can  be  most  effec- 
tively established  only  by  representatives  who  are  for  it  by  habit 
of  mind,  as  well  as  desire,  who  have  given  it  prolonged  study, 
and  have  made  themselves  expert  in  the  programme  of  its  in- 
auguration. 

But  there  is  yet  a  further  necessity  in  the  delimitation  of  per- 
sonnel. "Self-determination"  for  nationalities,  sincerely  applied, 
would  give  place  and  voice  in  the  conference  to  representatives 
of  all  nationalities  whose  fate  and  status  the  conference  is  to 
decide.  An  autonomous  Poland,  for  example,  is  undoubtedly 
desirable,  but  the  unspeakable  Polish  overlords  maintain  a  vicious 
hegemony  over  Lithuanians,  Letts  and  Jews,  no  less  than  over 
Polish  peasants.  Lithuanians,  Letts  and  Jews  as  well  as  Poles 
should  have  voice  and  place  at  the  peace  conference.  Serbo- 
Croats,  Bohemians,  Poles,  Jews,  Rumans  should  represent 
Austria  no  less  than  Magyars  and  Germans.  Arabs,  Armenians, 
Kurds,  to  mention  just  a  few,  should  have  voice  and  place 
equally  with  the  Osmanli  Turks  for  the  Ottoman  empire.  How 
the  representatives  of  the  minorities  are  to  be  elected,  what  their 
proportionate  weight  should  be,  are  questions  to  be  solved  by 
free  discussion  and  public  opinion.  That  the  cases  for  their 
peoples  must  be  put  by  the  chosen  representatives  of  these 
peoples,  that  they  must  necessarily  have  a  voice  in  deciding  their 
own  fate  in  the  community  of  nations,  is  beyond  argument.  So 
much  so,  indeed,  that  following  the  principle  involved,  Mr.  Nor- 
man Angell  suggests  the  representation  not  alone  of  nationalities 


156  SELECTED   ARTICLES 

but  also  of  political  parties  within  nations,  according  to  their 
numerical  strength.  Thus  Germany  would  be  represented  by  her 
Socialists  as  well  as  by  the  party  in  power,  England  by  her 
Laborites  as  well  as  by  her  Liberals  and  Conservatives,  and  so 
on.  In  this  way  fundamental  differences  in  political  principle 
would  get  representation,  no  less  than  differences  in  national 
character  and  interest. 

What  the  peace  conference  defining  itself  as  such  a  congress 
would  need  to  establish  is  the  law  of  a  minimum  genuine  inter- 
national control.  Now  all  political  control  consists  in  the  exer- 
cise of  two  functions.  One  is  limitation;  the  other,  liberation. 
Limitation  and  liberation  are  distinct  but  not  different,  since 
every  just  and  relevant  limitation  is  a  liberation — witness  the 
traffic  policeman.  International  limitation  would  apply  to  na^ 
tional  armaments,  to  quarrels  between  states  over  the  "stakes  of 
diplomacy,"  to  quarrels  within  states  over  national  hegemonies. 
The  limitation  of  armament  is  of  course  basic.  For  no  matter 
what  may  be  the  provocation  to  a  fight,  the  lack  of  weapons 
compels  the  substitution  of  persuasion  for  blows  and  funda- 
mentally alters  the  focus  of  the  "national  honor,"  a  figment  for 
the  defense  of  which  most  blows  are  struck.  Hence  the  Inter- 
national Congress  should  determine  for  the  nations  of  the  world, 
as  the  Continental  Congress  was  by  the  Articles  of  Confedera- 
tion empowered  to  determine  for  the  original  thirteen  American 
States,  the  extent  of  the  armament  of  each  state.  The  simplest 
way  to  do  this  would  be  to  fix  annually  the  amount  of  money 
each  state  might  spend  on  armament.  Control  of  expenditure 
would  require  the  complete  socialization  of  the  manufacture  of 
munitions,  its  subordination  to  the  inspection  and  control  of  an 
international  commission  on  armaments  and  absolute  publicity 
of  records  and  accounts.  All  uses  of  armament  should  require 
license  from  the  International  Congress,  particularly  such  uses 
as  go  by  the  euphemism  "puntive  expedition."  Failure  to  carry 
out  these  provisions  or  to  submit  to  the  rule  of  the  Interna- 
tional Congress  should  be  regarded  tantamount  to  a  declaration 
of  war.  It  should  be  regarded  with  respect  to  the  other  causes 
of  quarrel  between  and  within  states.  Interstate  disputes  of 
whatever  nature  should  be  submitted  to  the  International  Con- 
gress, which  would  be  also  the  highest  and  final  court.  There 
has  been  a  good  deal  of  silly  differentiation  between  "justiciable" 
and  "non- justiciable"  disputes,  but*  there's  nothing  that's  one  or 


A    LEAGUE    OF    NATIONS  157 

the  other  but  thinking  makes  it  so.  All  group  disputes  are  justi- 
ciable if  public  opinion  says  they  are.  When  the  International 
Congress  has  passed  on  them,  they  are  settled.  Failure  to  accept 
the  decision  of  the  Congress  should  automatically  constitute  a 
challenge  of  international  power  and  be  dealt  with  accordingly. 
The  devices  for  dealing  with  such  failure  are  not  exclusively 
military.  The  military  machine,  indeed,  should  be  the  last  re- 
sort. Initially,  there  is  the  tremendous  force  of  public  opinion, 
which  the  Church  wielded  in  the  middle  ages  as  the  Excom- 
munication and  the  Interdict.  These  should  be  revived.  The 
economic,  social,  cultural,  or  total  ostracism  of  states  or  portions 
of  states  involves  tremendously  less  hardship  and  suffering  than 
actual  military  assault  and  in  the  long  run  is  bound  in  an  in- 
dustrial society  like  ours  to  attain  the  same  end,  far  more  than 
in  earlier,  less  interdependent  ones. 

What  degree  of  coercive  power  these  provisions  would  have 
at  the  outset  will  depend  of  course  on  the  will  of  the  signatories 
to  any  international  constitution  not  to  turn  it  into  a  scrap  of 
paper.  The  governmental  organs  of  the  public  will  can  be  reg- 
ulated only  by  the  public  opinion  of  each  state,  and  the  public 
opinion  of  each  state  can  be  kept  internationally-minded  only  by 
means  of  the  completest  publicity  regarding  all  international 
relationship.  Publicity  and  education  are  the  cornerstone  of 
any  international  system  that  shall  be  democratic.  Hence  the 
rule  of  publicity  is  a  paramount  limitative  rule. 

The  foregoing  provisions  would,  I  believe,  supply  the  coercive 
force  the  lack  of  which  rendered  the  American  Confederation 
so  instructive  a  failure.  That  they  will  absolutely  prevent  war 
cannot  be  claimed.  Even  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States 
failed  to  do  that,  and  the  interstate  unity  it  provided  for  became 
a  permament  constituent  of  American  political  common-sense 
only  with  the  Civil  War.  No  doubt  history  on  the  terrestrial 
scale  will  repeat  history  on  the  continental.  No  doubt  there  will 
be,  as  in  America,  blocs  and  combinations  within  the  combina- 
tion, nullification  and  attempts  at  dissolution;  but  there  will  be 
in  operation  also,  as  in  America,  a  definitely  formulated,  agreed 
to  principle  of  unity,  insuring  mankind  against  a  great  many 
wars  almost  certain  to  come  without  it. 

Yet  the  chief  power  of  this  insurance  would  reside  in  the 
function  of  liberation  that  the  instruments  of  internationality 
would  perform.     Those  turn  on  the  satisfaction  of  the  basic 


158  SELECTED    ARTICLES 

wants  of  men,  and  the  consequent  release  of  their  spontaneous 
energies  in  the  creative  activities  their  natures  crave.  Such 
satisfaction  and  release  demand,  as  we  have  already  seen,  a  free 
trade  in  material  commodities  at  least  equivalent  to  the  free 
trade  in  things  of  the  spirit — in  science,  for  example,  or  art,  or 
music.  It  would  be  fundamental  for  the  International  Congress 
to  create  international  commissions  concerning  themselves  with 
the  coordination  of  efforts  to  increase  and  properly  distribute 
the  food  supply,  to  maintain  and  improve  international  health, 
to  maintain  and  keep  internationally  open  the  world's  highways, 
to  secure  the  equality  of  all  men  before  the  law  of  any  land,  to 
expand  and  intensify  the  world's  sense  of  community  by  in- 
ternationally coordinated  education. 

Most  of  these  functions  have  already  been  forced  on  the 
allied  democracies  by  the  exigencies  of  war;  they  would  need 
only  to  be  made  relevant  to  conditions  of  peace.  Such  are  the 
food  and  fuel  administrations,  acting  purely  in  view  of  interna- 
tional needs.  Others  existed  long  before  the  war.  Such  are  the 
postal  union,  and  Mr.  David  Lubin's  indispensably  serviceable 
agricultural  institute,  now  living  a  starved  life  in  Italy.  Still 
others  have  gone  on  as  voluntary  and  private  enterprises.  Such 
are  the  various  learned  societies,  particularly  the  medical  and 
the  chemical  societies.  These  would  need  endowment,  endorse- 
ment, establishment  under  international  rule.  In  none  of  these 
enterprises,  please  note,  is  a  novel  material  necessary.  All  the 
institutions  exist.  Attention  needs  only  to  be  shifted  to  their 
cooperative  integration,  expansion,  and  perfection  by  the  con- 
scious joint  effort  of  the  nations  of  the  world  to  turn  them  into 
a  genuine  machinery  of  liberating  international  government. 

The  most  important  instrument  of  internationality  is,  how- 
ever, education.  Take  care  of  education,  Plato  makes  Socrates 
say  in  the  "Republic,"  and  education  will  take  care  of  every- 
thing else.  Internationally,  education  must  rest  on  two  princi- 
ples •  one,  that  it  must  be  autonomous ;  the  other,  that  it  must 
be  unprejudiced.  Regarding  the  first:  We  have  already  seen 
how,  in  the  case  of  Germany,  the  state's  control  of  education  laid 
the  foundation  for  the  present  war.  The  school  served  the 
state's  vested  interest  in  the  school.  From  the  dark  ages  to  the 
present  day  the  Church  has  held  a  vested  interest  in  the  school, 
an  interest  from  which  events  have  more  or  less  freed  it,  but 
which  still  makes  itself  felt.    With  the  rise  of  private  educational 


A    LEAGUE    OF    NATIONS  159 

institutions  or  the  secularization  of  theological  ones — such  as 
Harvard  or  Yale  or  Princeton — with  the  elaboration  of  the  pub- 
lic school  systems  of  the  different  states  of  this  country  or  any 
other,  the  powers  of  government,  visible  or  invisible,  have  de- 
termined largely  what  should  and  what  should  not  be  taught, 
what  is  true  and  what  is  false,  always  from  the  point  of  view  of 
the  interests  of  these  powers.  Heresy  has  been  consistently  per- 
secuted, with  means  varying  from  the  auto-da-fe  of  the  Church 
to  the  more  delicate  tools  of  contemporary  university  trustees  or 
school  committees.  Heresy  consists  of  that  which  is  not  in 
accord  with  the  interests  or  prejudices  of  the  ruling  power. 

Now  the  art  of  education  involves  three  forces :  First,  its 
theme — the  growing  child,  whose  creative  spontaneities  are  to  be 
encouraged,  whose  capacities  for  service  and  happiness  are  to 
be  actualized,  intensified,  and  perfected.  Second,  the  investigator 
and  inventor  who  discovers  or  makes  the  material  and  machin- 
ery which  are  the  conditions  of  the  child's  life  and  growth, 
which  liberate  or  repress  these.  Third,  the  teacher  who  trans- 
mits to  the  child  the  knowledge  of  the  nature  and  use  of  these 
things,  drawing  out  its  powers  and  enhancing  its  vitality  by 
means  of  them.  Obviously,  to  the  last  two,  to  the  discoverers 
and  creators  of  knowledge,  and  to  its  transmitters  and  dis- 
tributors, to  these  and  to  no  one  else  beside,  belongs  the  control 
of  education.  It  is  as  absurd  that  any  but  teachers  and  inves- 
tigators should  govern  the  art  of  education  as  that  any  but 
medical  practitioners  and  investigators  should  govern  the  art 
of  medicine.  International  law  would  best  abolish  this  ex- 
ternal control  by  making  the  communities  of  educators  every- 
where autonomous  bodies,  vigorously  cooperative  in  an  in- 
ternational union..  Within  this  union  the  freest  possible 
movement  of  teachers  and  pupils  should  be  provided  for,  ex- 
changes of  both  between  all  nations  to  the  end  of  attaining 
the  acme  of  free  trade  in  habits  and  theories  of  life,  in  letters, 
and  in  methods. 

Regarding  the  second  principle  of  internationalized  educa- 
tion— that  it  must  be  unprejudiced:  This  requires  the  systematic 
internationalization  of  certain  subject-matters.  In  the  end,  of 
course,  all  subject-matters  get  internationalized.  The  process  is. 
however,  too  slow  and  too  dangerous  with  respect  to  some  of 
these,  history  being  the  most  flagrant.  Compare  any  collection 
of  history  textbooks  with  any  similar  collection  in  physics,  for 


160  SELECTED    ARTICLES 

example,  and  you  will  find  the  latter  possessed  of  a  unanimity 
never  to  be  attained  in  the  former.  Why?  Because  every 
hypothesis  in  physics  is  immediately  tested  in  a  thousand  labora- 
tories and  the  final  conclusion  is  the  result  of  the  collective  en- 
terprise of  all  sorts  and  conditions  of  physics.  In  the  writing 
of  history  such  cooperative  verification  never  occurs.  Most  his- 
tories, particularly  those  put  into  the  hands  of  children,  utter 
vested  interests,  not  scientifically  tested  results;  they  utter  sec- 
tarian or  national  vanity,  class  privileges,  class  resentment,  and 
so  on.  Compare  any  English  history  of  the  American  Revolution 
with  any  American  history!  Fancy  the  wide  divergence  of  as- 
sertion between  friends  and  enemies  in  the  matter  of  German 
atrocities !  Naturally,  the  interpretation  of  historic  "fact"  must 
and  should  vary  with  the  interpreter,  but  the  designation  of  the 
same  "fact"  should  clearly  be  identical  for  all  interpreters.  To 
keep  education  unprejudiced  requires  therefore  the  objective 
designation  of  historic  fact — "historic"  to  mean  the  recorded 
enterprise  of  all  departments  of  human  life.  The  "facts"  of 
history  should  be  attested  by  an  international  commission.  So 
the  second  function  of  education  is  served. 

With  this  we  have  established  the  full  pattern  of  the  house 
of  peace — an  international  democratic  congress,  limiting  arma- 
ments, judging  disputes,  coordinating  and  harmonizing  the  great 
national  institutions  by  means  of  which  men  get  food  and 
clothing  and  shelter  and  health  and  happiness,  making  for  a 
free  exchange  of  all  excellence,  punishing  default  with  interdict 
or  excommunication  or  war,  resting  its  authority  upon  public 
opinion  and  strengthening  it  by  internationalized  education. 


THE   LEAGUE  OF  NATIONS1 

The  experience  of  Rome  in  ancient  times  shows  us  what  the 
Empire  of  the  Caesars  did  for  the  enfranchisement  and  peace  of 
the  universe,  so  long  as  it  continued  to  be  a  league  of  nations. 
The  peoples  which  made  up  that  Empire  did  not  depend  upon  an 
Emperor,  but  upon  a  political  association,  a  body  of  senators, 
magistrates,  and  citizens;  and  they  realized  that  they  had  at  the 
same  time  a  great  and  a  smaller  country. 

1  By  Albert  Thomas,  Leader  of  the  new  (French)  Socialist  Party  of 
the  Right.    Atlantic  Monthly,  p.  677.  November,  19 18. 


A   LEAGUE    OF    NATIONS  161 

This  happy  equilibrium  was  destroyed  on  the  day  when  the 
Roman  Empire  undertook  to  transform  itself  into  a  single  en- 
tity; when  it  ceased  to  be  an  organization  of  different  nations 
and  cities,  and  mingled  all  that  it  included  in  one  confused 
whole,  without  proper  differentiation. 

In  the  Middle  Ages  we  have  the  example  of  the  Church, 
which  exercised  rights  of  sovereignty  in  each  of  the  states  under 
its  jurisdiction.  Its  role  in  the  termination  of  wars,  in  the  con- 
clusion of  treaties,  affords  an  example  of  numerous  supra-na- 
tional interventions  which  were  effective  down  to  the  period 
when  religious  authority  was  checkmated  by  the  coming  of 
modern  times  and  the  development  of  lay  elements. 

More  recently  still,  it  has  been  impossible  to  disregard  the 
scope  of  international  conventions;  for  example,  those  which 
were  created  to  abolish  slavery  and  to  establish  the  Universal 
Postal  Union. 

Since  the  meeting  of  the  Anti-Slavery  Conference  at  London, 
that  is  to  say,  from  1841  to  1910,  there  have  been  175  inter- 
governmental conferences,  some  of  which  have  met  with  quasi- 
regularity;  for  instance,  there  have  been  fifteen  geodesic  confer- 
ences, thirteen  sanitary,  and  eight  penological. 

Lastly,  there  have  been  the  conferences  at  The  Hague,  where 
we  find  a  significant  alignment  of  the  powers  in  making  import- 
ant decisions.  When,  in  1907,  the  nations  had  assembled  to  enter 
into  compulsory  arbitration  treaties  among  themselves,  the  main 
principle  was  ratified  by  thirty-five  votes,  with  only  five  in  op- 
position— those  of  Germany,  Austria-Hungary,  Greece,  Rou- 
mania,  and  Turkey.  That  is  to  say,  only  eleven  years  ago,  at  the 
time  of  signing  the  arbitration  treaties,  the  Entente  stood  almost 
solidly  on  one  side,  with  the  neutrals,  while  on  the  other  side 
were  the  Central  Empires  and  their  allies.  In  these  beginnings, 
made  in  the  face  of  opposition,  we  see  the  first  form  of  that 
League  of  Nations  which,  since  the  war  began,  has  resolved  it- 
self into  the  present  system  of  inter-Allied  relations.  In  the 
federation  of  all  the  nations  who  are  fighting  for  the  Right ;  not 
one  is,  at  this  moment,  acting  with  entire  independence.  They 
must,  one  and  all,  unite  and  act  together,  not  only  in  what  con- 
cerns their  armies,  but  also  in  respect  to  the  general  conduct  of 
all  the  diplomatic  and  political  affairs  of  the  Alliance. 

In  face  of  the  unity  of  control  of  the  enemy,  the  restrictions 
upon  their  individual  sovereignty  to  which  the  Allied  nations 


162  SELECTED    ARTICLES 

assent  go  constantly  deeper  and  deeper.  Every  day  further 
progress  is  made  among  them  toward  a  closer  and  closer  bond 
of  union,  a  subordination  of  all  alike  to  the  common,  higher  in- 
terest which  guides  them  and  unites  them  in  this  conflict. 

This  bond  of  union,  freely  accepted,  and  this  subordination 
of  all  to  the  general  interest,  have  extended  from  the  general 
conduct  of  the  war  to  the  domain  of  supplies,  of  finances — in  a 
word,  step  by  step,  to  the  whole  life  of  the  nations. 

The  reciprocal  oversight  thus  exercised  does  not  appear  in 
the  light  of  an  annoyance  or  an  encroachment  but,  on  the  con- 
trary, as  a  guaranty  and  constant  assurance  of  the  continuity 
and  fair  distribution  of  the  efforts  of  each  one  of  the  nations  in 
the  common  struggle. 

In  this  closely  knit  bond  of  the  Entente,  the  smaller  nations 
are  neither  sacrificed,  nor  even  subordinated  more  than  the 
greater  ones,  to  the  general  interest.  But  they  feel  that  they 
stand  on  an  equality  as  to  their  rights,  no  less  than  as  to  their 
duties,  in  the  councils  which  decide  upon  the  common  action  and 
upon  the  means  of  putting  it  in  execution.  It  was  these  coun- 
cils which  reached  an  agreement  to  define  our  war-aims.  They 
will  lay  down  our  terms  of  peace  also,  which  will  include  no  pri- 
vate terms  for  any  member  of  the  Entente. 

We  see,  then,  that  it  has  been  found  to  be  necessary,  in  order 
to  bring  the  war  to  a  successful  issue,  to  establish  between  the 
various  nations  of  the  Entente  a  system  of  international  rela- 
tions, more  strictly  defined  and  more  restrictive  of  their  in- 
dividual sovereignty  than  would  be  possible  in  times  of  peace. 
And  this  is  the  decisive,  peremptory  argument  which  answers 
by  anticipation  all  the  objections  as  to  practical  obstacles  in  the 
way  of  the  creation  of  the  League  of  Nations.  What  remains 
to  be  solved  is  nothing  in  comparison  with  what  has  been  solved 
and  with  the  benefits  we  may  expect  to  derive  therefrom. 

If  the  League  of  Nations  had  been  in  existence  in  August, 
1914,  Germany  probably  would  not  have  declared  war;  but  even 
if  she  had  dared  to  do  so  in  defiance  of  the  conventions  signed 
by  her,  all  the  nations  which  are  willing  to  guarantee  justice  and 
the  law  would  have  found  themselves  compelled  to  enter  at  once 
into  the  conflict.  Instead  of  intervening  without  concert  and 
one  by  one,  all  the  nations  of  the  Entente  would  have  come 
forward  together,  armed  and  ready  to  defend  the  Right,  at  the 
precise  moment  in  August,  1914,  when  the  crime  was  committed. 


A    LEAGUE    OF    NATIONS  163 

Such  is  the  world-organization  at  which  we  aim,  and  which 
has  been  proved  to  be  practicable  by  the  experience  of  four  years 
of  war.  It  is  in  process  of  realization;  to  perfect  it,  nothing 
more  is  needed  than  perseverance  on  the  part  of  the  govern- 
ments, and  the  concurrence  of  all  the  free  nations. 
*********** 

To  progress  from  the  anarchical  condition  of  the  world  be- 
fore the  war  to  a  complete  organization  deserving  the  name  of 
a  League  of  Nations  in  the  fullest  sense  of  the  word — that  will 
unquestionably  be  a  long,  long  road;  but  we  can  clearly  make 
out  the  first  stage,  which  we  can  traverse  during  the  war. 

A  court  of  arbitration  must  be  set  up — that  is  to  say,  a 
method  of  procedure  for  settling  controversies  between  nations, 
analogous  to  that  which  has  already  been  resorted  to  in  a  cer- 
tain number  of  cases.  But  to  avoid  the  repetition  of  an  experi- 
ment which  was  tried  in  the  last  decades  of  the  nineteenth  cen- 
tury, and  of  which  the  acid  test  of  this  war  has  demonstrated 
the  inadequacy,  we  must  invest  the  tribunal  with  the  function  of 
drawing  up  the  rules  to  be  applied,  and  reinforce  it  with  the 
power  to  execute  them. 

In  reply  to  President  Wilson's  eloquent  appeal  in  favor  of 
compulsory  arbitration,  we  saw  last  year  the  Central  Empires, 
and  even  the  Sultan  of  Turkey  himself,  give  in  a  solemn  adhe- 
sion to  the  principle.  There  was  just  one  small  restriction:  the 
principle  of  arbitration  was  accepted  by  the  representatives  of 
our  adversaries  only  with  reservation  of  the  "vital  interests"  of 
either  of  the  three  Empires  concerned.  We  know  to-day,  by 
the  example  of  the  treaty  of  Brest-Litovsk,  what  those  Empires 
mean  by  their  "vital  interests,"  and  how  far  they  carry  their 
contempt  of  the  most  legitimate  interests  of  other  nationalities. 

Of  course,  nations  more  considerate  of  the  rights  of  others 
might  refrain  from  such  excesses;  but  we  must  recognize  none 
the  less  that  an  attitude  of  distrust  with  respect  to  any  given 
system  of  unconditional  arbitration  is  altogether  justifiable,  even 
for  states  honestly  well  disposed  to  the  principle. 

The  supra-national  organization  should  therefore  take  for  its 
immediate  task  to  establish  the  essential  rights  likely  to  be 
agreed  upon  by  the  participating  nations.  General  formulae  are 
not  enough.  Upon  general  formulae  the  whole  world  may  de- 
clare itself  to  be  in  accord — even  Chancellor  von  Hertling  and 
President  Wilson;  but  as  soon  as  we  come  to  precise  applica- 
tions, unconquerable  opposition  appears. 


164  SELECTED    ARTICLES 

The  supra-national  organization  will  have  to  study  one  after 
another,  in  connection  with  the  great  principles  offered  for  its 
scrutiny,  the  formulae  and  the  rules  capable  of  transforming  a 
general  platonic  ideal  into  a  workable  law,  susceptible  of  prac- 
tical judicial  execution. 

This  scheme  may  seem  over-ambitious,  and  so  it  would  be,  in 
fact,  if  it  were  proposed  to  solve  all  questions  at  a  single  stroke ; 
to  secure  at  the  first  attempt  a  Complete  code  of  relations  be- 
tween the  different  states.  But  we  consider,  on  the  contrary, 
that,  in  this  more  surely  than  in  any  other  matter,  the  questions 
to  be  solved  must  be  divided  into  categories.  Sufficient  unto  the 
day  is  the  evil  thereof.  Let  us  give  to  this  organization,  to  begin 
with,  the  general  commission  to  establish  and  maintain  between 
its  constituents,  as  well  as  with  regard  to  all  others,  the  law  of 
nations  as  defined  by  parties  contracting  under  it. 

This  would  relieve  us  from  the  necessity  of  bothering  our 
minds  immediately  about  a  host  of  problems,  and  would  also 
enable  us  to  promulgate  the  most  essential  and  most  urgent  rules 
looking  to  the  conclusion  of  the  present  conflict. 

But  when  these  rules  shall  have  been  once  laid  down,  when 
the  law  of  nations  shall  have  been  formulated,  there  will  still  be 
left  for  us  to  face  the  most  serious  difficulty  of  all — the 
stumbling-block  which  has  thus  far  caused  the  breakdown  of 
all  the  plans  of  the  pacifists:  that  is  to  say,  the  creation  of  an 
executive  force  at  the  service  of  this  law,  and  of  penalties  to 
be  imposed  upon  those  who  may  be  tempted  to  violate  it. 

Such  penalties  are  possible;  different  categories  have  been 
suggested.  The  first,  which  have  sometimes  aroused  a  smile  of 
incredulity,  have  nevertheless  real  merit.  They  take  the  form  of 
an  appeal  to  be  made  to  public  opinion,  to  the  opinion  of  the 
whole  world.  Our  adversaries,  who,  at  the  beginning  of  the 
war,  defied  this  opinion  so  far  as  possible,  have  finally  recog- 
nized its  importance.  They  have  put  forth  their  utmost  efforts, 
by  means  of  a  propaganda  no  less  false  than  frantic,  to  reverse, 
not  only  in  neutral  countries,  but  among  the  Allies,  the  moral 
judgment  which  they  saw  to  be  altogether  adverse  to  them. 
They  have  resorted  to  all  possible  methods  to  cast  upon  us  the 
responsibility  for  the  conflict,  or,  at  least,  for  its  continuance. 
And  this  fact  demonstrates  the  unquestionable  efficacy  of  moral 
penalties. 

There  are  also  the  economic  penalties,  the  most  potent  of 


A    LEAGUE    OF    NATIONS  165 

which  are  the  boycott,  reprisals,  expulsions,  sequestrations, 
judicial  isolation,  the  economic  blockade;  and  the  abolition  or 
restriction  of  international  commerce. 

All  these  methods,  which  have  been  utilized  during  the  war, 
must  be  retained  after  the  war,  against  powers  which  might 
still  claim  to  dominate  the  world;  which  should  refuse  to  recog- 
nize the  rules  and  principles  established  by  common  action.  Our 
adversaries  attach  very  great  importance  to  this  species  of  coer- 
cion. They  are  tremendously  anxious  to  find  out  to  what  extent 
and  for  how  many  years  the  "economic  weapon"  will  be  used 
against  them  after  the  cessation  of  hostilities. 

It  is  certain  that  this  economic  weapon  is  to-day,  and  will 
remain,  a  most  powerful  one  in  the  hands  of  the  Allies.  But  in 
order  to  assure  the  possibility  of  its  employment  as  long  as  may 
be  necessary,  we  must  be  prepared  to  support  it  at  need  by  mil- 
itary force. 

At  this  point,  we  have  to  deal  with  the  problem  of  creating 
a  military  force  in  the  service  of  the  law  of  nations,  whose  duty 
it  shall  be  to  compel  obedience  to  the  decisions  made  by  the 
League  of  Nations ;  and  we  find  ourselves  confronted  by  two 
equally  vital  requirements  which  seem  contradictory.  On  the 
one  hand,  we  are  convinced  that,  if  this  war  does  not  result  in 
lessening  for  the  future  the  burden  of  an  armed  peace,  we  shall 
have  accepted  to  no  purpose  all  the  sacrifices  which  it  has  al- 
ready cost  us.  And,  on  the  other  hand,  unless  we  are  to  fall 
asleep  prematurely  in  the  delusions  from  which  our  Russian 
friends  have  just  had  such  a  cruel  awakening,  we  face  the  ne- 
cessity of  maintaining,  in  the  service  of  the  very  peace  that  we 
seek  to  establish,  a  force  strong  enough  to  punish  infractions  of 
plighted  faith. 

But  these  two  requirements  are  not  so  incompatible  as  they 
seem  at  first  sight.  If  the  limitation  of  armaments  were  im- 
posed on  every  state,  we  can  readily  see  that  the  sum  of  the 
forces  of  all  the  others  exerted  against  an  isolated  state  would 
be  irresistible.  It  would  be  essential,  of  course,  that  there  should 
be  perfect  coordination  between  these  forces — a  connection  so 
intimate  as  to  assure  their  immediate,  simultaneous,  and  there- 
fore effective  employment.  But  there  would  be  no  need  to  place 
all  the  national  armies  under  a  single,  absolute  supra-national 
command;  it  would  suffice  to  maintain,  in  times  of  peace,  the 
close  relation  which  already  exists  between  the  Allied  armies. 


166  SELECTED    ARTICLES 

Whatever  the  difficulties  in  the  way  of  carrying  through 
such  a  scheme,  the  fact  remains  that  we  cannot  evade  the  prob- 
lem. If  we  do  not  solve  it,  we  shall  fall  back  sooner  or  later 
into  the  conditions  of  rivalry  and  competition  in  armaments  with 
which  the  world  was  familiar  before  the  present  war. 

Doubtless  the  composition  of  this  international  military  force 
will  be  the  most  delicate  question  for  the  League  of  Nations  to 
settle.  But  other  essential  questions  will  demand  settlement 
with  equal  urgency,  immediately  upon  the  advent  of  peace,  and 
even  before  it  is  concluded. 

Provision  will  have  to  be  made  for  the  economic  life  of  the 
nations  which  have  taken  part  in  the  conflict,  and  for  distribut- 
ing among  them  raw  materials  and  the  means  of  subsistence. 

Finally,  there  will  have  to  be  provided  a  supra-national  au- 
thority which  will  be  indispensable  in  the  matter  of  liquidating 
the  finances  of  the  various  states  and  enabling  them  to  return  to 
a  normal  economic  regime  after  the  tremendous  upheavals 
caused  by  the  war  in  the  economic  life  of  the  whole  world. 

Again,  it  will  be  necessary  to  appeal  for  the  intervention  of 
the  supra-national  authority  to  settle  many  peculiarly  delicate 
and  complex  questions,  as,  for  example,  censuring  the  neutrality 
or  the  freedom  of  the  Dardanelles. 

Here,  then,  are  certain  very  urgent,  very  clearly  defined 
tasks,  which  we  offer  for  the  action  of  the  League  of  Nations. 
It  alone  can  perform  them,  and  reestablish  order  after  the  im- 
mense upheaval  which  will  leave  in  utter  disarray  the  men  and 
the  bodies  politic  of  the  world  before  the  war.  On  all  sides  new 
problems  and  duties  arise,  and  it  is  enough  to  enumerate  them, 
to  show  that,  beside  the  skeptics  who  do  not  believe  in  the 
League  of  Nations,  beside  the  wise  men  who  postpone  them  to 
a  later  date,  if  we  are  idealists, — in  other  words,  fools, — we  are 

very  positive  idealists. 
*********** 

There  has  been  a  deal  of  discussion  as  to  whether  Germany 
should  be  admitted  to  the  League  of  Nations,  or  be  debarred 
therefrom.    It  is  for  her  alone  to  furnish  the  reply. 

It  is  quite  evident  that  imperialist  and  militarist  Germany, 
which  assumes  to  impose  her  domination  upon  Europe  and  to 
hold  the  civilization  of  the  twentieth  century  under  the  per- 
petual menace  of  her  big.  guns,  could  find  no  place  in  a  league 
of   nations   destined  to   establish  and  maintain  respect  for  the 


A    LEAGUE    OF    NATIONS  167 

Law.  But  we  should  commit  a  serious  mistake  if  we  imagined 
that  Germany  forms  a  single  mass,  inspired  solely  by  the  ideal 
of  its  General  Staff,  and  sharing  all  its  aspirations.  However 
feeble  the  reaction  in  Germany  may  be,  it  exists;  numerous 
strikes  offer  to  the  observer  unmistakable  signs  of  internal  dis- 
turbances, and  presage,  if  not  a  revolution,  at  least  an  evolu- 
tion. 

It  is  this  evolution  which  the  world  awaits.  It  is  this  evolu- 
tion which  President  Wilson  predicts  in  the  masterly  address 
delivered  on  July  4  last,  at  the  tomb  of  Washington : — 

"The  blinded  rulers  of  Prussia  have  roused  forces  they  knew 
little  of — forces  which,  once  aroused,  can  never  be  crushed  to 
earth  again;  for  they  have  at  their  heart  an  inspiration  and  a 
purpose  which  are  deathless  and  of  the  very  stuff  of  triumph." 

Lord  Grey  of  Fallodon,  in  a  pamphlet  recently  published,  de- 
clares that  the  Allies  cannot  save  the  world  if  Germany  herself 
remembers  nothing  of  the  lessons  of  the  war;  if  she  does  not 
realize  that  militarism  is  the  deadly  enemy  of  mankind. 

To  the  same  purpose  Lord  Curzon  said  in  a  recent  speech  in 
the  House  of  Lords,  "It  is  essential  that  there  shall  be  a  general 
agreement  among  the  nations;  and  to  obtain  a  useful  result,  all 
the  nations  on  earth  must  become  parties  to  it." 

From  all  these  solemn  and  impartial  declarations  it  follows 
that  we  must  not  only  conquer  Germany,  but  convert  her.  And 
that  will  be  the  great,  the  supreme  victory  to  which  President 
Wilson  beckoned  us  when  he  defined  the  principles  of  the 
League  of  Nations. 


THE   DEFEATISTS1 

One  by  one  the  enemies  of  President  Wilson's  plan  of  a 
League  of  Nations  as  the  instrumentality  of  impartial  justice  at 
the  Peace  Conference  are  coming  out  into  the  open.     .  .  . 

A  peculiarly  interesting  declaration  of  hostility  has  recently 
appeared  in  the  Villager,  a  journal  of  limited  circulation  in 
Westchester  County,  New  York,  whose  expressions  of  opinion 
derive  exceptional  significance  from  the  ability  of  its  editor.  It 
protests  against  Mr.  Wilson's  uncompromising  association  of  a 

*New  Republic,  p.  327.  October  19,  1918. 


i68  SELECTED    ARTICLES 

League  of  Nations  with  America's  war  aims,  for  reasons  which, 
if  true,  would  condemn  the  whole  project  as  impracticable  and 
dangerous.  "We  can  and  must  defeat  Germany,"  says  the 
Villager,  "but  we  cannot  defeat  her  ambition."  "We  cannot 
change  her  heart."  The  Germans  are  incorrigible.  The  Allies 
should  treat  them  as  if  under  no  circumstances  could  they  be- 
come worthy  of  confidence.  The  dominant  object  of  the  peace 
settlement  should  be  the  permanent  organization  of  a  pre- 
ponderance of  power,  not  to  promote  impartial  justice,  but  to 
guarantee  the  future  safety  of  an  anti-German  alliance.  A  na- 
tion such  as  Germany  has  proved  herself  to  be  will  cease  to  be 
dangerous  only  because  she  ceases  to  exert  power  and  only  in 
so  far  as  she  ceases  to  exert  power.  Any  association  of  nations 
which  may  result  from  the  President's  efforts  should  be  designed 
as  an  instrument  of  force  so  overwhelming  that  a  policy  of 
future  discrimination  against  Germany  would  be  irresistible. 

The  attitude  towards  the  problem  of  winning  the  war  reg- 
isters a  frank  and  an  illuminating  departure  from  the  former 
attitude  of  such  journals.  Last  fall  and  winter  they  protested 
against  any  statement  or  discussion  of  war  aims  because,  they 
said,  victory  was  the  only  war  aim.  Military  victory  would  be 
all  sufficient  and  would  by  its  own  intrinsic  virtue  teach  the 
German  people  the  indispensable  lesson  and  deliver  the  world 
from  the  threat  of  German  domination.  But  now  that  military 
victory  is  imminent,  the  Villager  assures  us  that  it  is  not  suffi- 
cient and  is  not  the  only  war  aim.  The  defeat  which  the  Allied 
armies  are  inflicting  on  the  Germany  army  at  such  a  terrific  cost 
will  not  impair  the  predatory  disposition  of  the  German  people. 
The  Allies  must  continue  the  war  after  the  war.  The  measures 
and  guarantees  of  the  ultimate  victory  do  not  derive  from  mil- 
itary success,  no  matter  how  overwhelming.  They  derive  from 
the  political  policy  which  prevails  during  and  after  the  peace 
conference.  That  policy,  according  to  journals  such  as  the  Vil- 
lager and  statesmen  such  as  Senator  Lodge,  must  be  determined 
chiefly  by  the  politics  of  power.  Military  victory  in  the  war, 
having  failed  to  effect  any  change  for  the  better  in  the  disposi- 
tion of  the  German  people,  military  policy  and  military  values 
should  mould  the  terms  of  peace. 

Thus  conservatives  are  now  beginning  to  admit  the  impotence 
of  military  victory  alone  to  assure  the  greater  and  more  per- 


A    LEAGUE    OF    NATIONS  169 

mament  political  victory  upon  which  the  winning  of  the  war 
finally  depends.  They  are  in  this  respect  coming  around  to  the 
position  which  has  been  occupied  by  the  New  Republic  before 
and  since  America  entered  the  war.  They  concede  the  need  of 
supplementing  a  victory  of  the  Allied  soldiers  with  a  victory  of 
Allied  statesmanship.  But  the  political  policy  with  which  they 
propose  to  secure  the  fruits  of  military  victory  is  in  sharp  con- 
flict with  that  proposed  by  the  President.  After  concealing  for 
many  months  their  political  solution  of  the  war  under  the  dictum 
that  victory  was  the  only  war  aim,  and  after  condemning  all 
discussion  of  Allied  political  purposes  as  an  attempt  to  win  the 
war  with  words,  they  are  now  gathering  to  defeat  the  solution 
which  the  President  has  explicitly  and  repeatedly  proclaimed  to 
be  the  official  policy  of  the  American  government.  They  may 
well  succeed,  for  they  represent  a  deeply  rooted  tradition- (that 
of  "macht-politik") — and  intense  emotion  (that  of  fear,  hatred 
and  revenge) — and  a  powerful  body  of  interest  and  opinion  in 
all  the  Allied  countries  (that  which  seeks  to  preserve  the  inter- 
national status  quo  ante).  But  if  they  succeed,  they  will  succeed 
also  in  frustating  the  generous  emotions  in  defeating  the  liberal 
purposes  and  in  preventing  the  salutary  political  results  which 
the  liberal  democratic  leadership  has  associated  with  the  cause 
of  the  Allies.  What  boots  it  if  we  break  up  Middle  Europe, 
emancipate  the  Slavs,  and  root  out  the  Turks  if  we  do  not  take 
advantage  of  the  victory  over  imperialism  to  organize  a  new 
society  of  nations  based  on  equality  of  right? 

We  wonder  whether  they  have  fully  considered  the  implica- 
tions and  consequences  of  their  possible  success  in  substituting 
a  victory  of  power  for  Mr.  Wilson's  proposed  victory  of  justice. 
In  the  address  to  Congress  asking  for  a  declaration  of  war 
against  Germany  the  President  clearly  indicated  the  liberal  and 
ultimately  conciliatory  nature  of  the  political  purposes  of  which 
military  victory  was  to  be  the  instrument.  In  his  subsequent 
series  of  war  papers  and  speeches,  he  reiterated  and  expanded 
his  original  proposal  for  a  League  of  Free  Nations  as  the  essen- 
tial agency  of  international  justice,  and  for  a  permament  political 
defeat  of  Prussian  power  politics.  As  a  result  of  these  pledges 
hundreds  of  thousands  of  his  fellow-countrymen  entered  the 
war  sustained  by  the  conviction  that  they  were  fighting  to  give 
birth  to  a  new  world  of  international  peace  and  justice.  Reas- 
sured and  fired  by  his  words,  labor  leaders  in  France  and  Great 


170  SELECTED    ARTICLES 

Britain  persuaded  thousands  of  their  followers  to  overcome  war 
weariness  and  to  support  their  governments  without  flinching. 
His  winged  words  were  distributed  in  enemy  countries  for  the 
particular  purpose  of  gaining  confidence  of  the  Bulgarian, 
Austrian  and  German  people,  and  of  making  them  believe  in  the 
disposition  of  the  Allied  governments  to  work  for  impartial 
justice.  During  all  this  time  these  doubters  and  opponents  of 
the  President's  plan,  except  in  one  or  two  instances,  remained 
silent.  They  permitted  the  victory  for  which  all  were  working 
to  be  associated  with  the  League  of  Nations.  They  conducted 
no  propaganda  in  the  press  which  clearly  revealed  to  the  world 
the  existence  of  any  quarrel  between  Americans  as  to.  the  final 
political  solution  of  the  war.  They  never  raised  in  Congress 
the  question  of  repudiating  the  pledge  made  by  the  President 
of  American  participation  in  the  League.  They  were  satisfied 
with  suppressing  their  own  fears,  scruples  and  convictions,  and 
with  abusing  those  of  the  President's  supporters  who  emphasized 
the  need  of  associating  the  winning  of  the  war  with  the  forma- 
tion of  a  League  of  Nations.  Yet  now  in  spite  of  the  unqual- 
ified nature  of  the  President's  pledge,  the  extent  to  which  it  is 
believed  by  the  plain  people  in  all  countries  and  the  suppression 
hitherto  of  overt  opposition,  his  enemies  are  now  planning  to  de- 
feat it.  If  they  succeed,  the  American  citizens  and  the  citizens 
of  other  countries  who  accepted  the  President's  pledge  at  its  face 
value  would  be  tempted  not  without  reason  to  charge  the  Amer- 
ican government  with  being  perfidious. 

It  is  these  opponents  of  the  League  of  Nations  who  are  the 
genuine  defeatists.  If  the  vindictive  passions  which  they  in- 
carnate dominate  the  work  of  the  peace  conference,  democracy 
will  have  fought  the  war  in  vain.  For  no  sooner  is  military 
victory  assured  than  the  opponents  of  democratic  international- 
ism proclaimed  the  moral  and  political  ineffectuality  of  what  the 
armies  have  achieved.  We  must  treat  the  Germans,  although 
defeated  just  as  if  they  were  not  defeated.  We  must  fear 
them  just  as  much,  and  we  must  take  just  as  many  precautions 
against  them.  And  because  we  fear  them  we  must  use  our  vic- 
tory over  them  chiefly  to  make  them  fear  us.  We  must  treat 
them,  that  is,  much  as  they  would  have  treated  us  and  neutralize 
the  necessary  lack  of  impartial  justice  in  our  policy  by  a  pre- 
ponderance of  power.  In  fine,  we  must  ourselves  adopt  perma- 
nently a  politics  based  on  power  as  a  safeguard  against  the  pos- 


A    LEAGUE    OF    NATIONS  171 

sibility  of  German  recovery.  We  must  ourselves  organize  into 
an  international  system  the  Prussian  "macht-politik"  as  a  pre- 
caution against  its  use  by  the  Prussians.  They  are  ready  to  have 
Prussianism  conquer  us  just  at  the  moment  of  our  victory  over 
Prussia.  It  is  from  this  fate  that  the  President  has  sought  and 
still  seeks  to  save  the  western  democracies  by  organizing  the 
League  of  Free  Nations.  If  we  needed  any  further  proof  that 
there  was  no  other  way,  the  arguments  and  the  alternative 
policy  of  his  critics  would  supply  it.  They  postulate  the  impos- 
sibility of  any  change  in  the  disposition  of  the  German  people 
as  the  reason  for  a  permament  system  of  international  dis- 
crimination against  Germany  which  would  itself  act  as  an  in- 
superable barrier  to  any  such  change.  The  Germans  would  be 
offered  a  choice  between  being  the  victims  of  the  new  world 
order  or  its  conquerors.  If  the  counsel  of  these  men  is  fol- 
lowed, the  Allies  will  be  apotheosizing  force  and  perpetuating 
war  as  the  best  method  of  securing  the  fruits  of  a  military  vic- 
tory won  by  the  proclaimed  guardians  of  democratic  liberty. 


THE  GOVERNMENT  AND  THE  LEAGUE  OF 
NATIONS  x 

How  stands  the  project  of  the  League  of  Nations?  Does  it 
go  forward  or  is  it  simply  marking  time?  Since  I  wrote  on 
this  subject  in  the  July  number  of  The  Fortnightly  Review  two 
important  discussions  have  taken  place  in  the  British  Parliament. 
On  June  26th  the  long-adjourned  debate  in  the  House  of  Lords 
on  Lord  Parmoor's  motion  was  resumed,  and  Lord  Curzon 
made  a  carefully  worded  declaration  of  policy.  On  August  1st 
the  House  of  Commons  discussed  the  project  for  the  first  time, 
and  Mr.  Balfour  and  Lord  Robert  Cecil  spoke  favourably  and 
hopefully.  The  Foreign  Secretary  said  that  he  was  prepared  to 
preach  the  doctrine  "vehemently,"  and  there  are  not  many  themes 
which  can  move  Mr.  Balfour  to  vehemence.  Lord  Robert  Cecil 
was  of  opinion  that  "a  workable  plan  for  establishing  this  safe- 
guard against  war  in  the  future  could  be  found,"  and  it  was  the 
same  Minister  who  declared  on  another  occasion  that  he  could 

1  By  J.  B.  Firth,  member  of  the  editorial  staff  of  the  London  Daily 
Telegraph.     In  Fortnightly  Review  for  September,   19 18.     p.   367. 


172  SELECTED    ARTICLES 

not  remain  for  an  hour  in  any  Administration  which  was  not 
pledged  to  the  League  of  Nations.  When  Lord  Curzon  was 
asked  to  say  definitely  whether  the  Government  were  in  earnest, 
he  replied  "Yes,"  and  added  that  they  were  carefully  exploring 
its  possibilities.  As  for  the  Prime  Minister,  he  never  loses  an 
opportunity  of  applauding  the  principle,  though  he  eschews  de- 
tails. Moreover,  on  this  subject  there  is  no  fear  of  trouble  from 
the  Opposition.  Alas!  The  League  of  Nations  has  become  a 
popular  catchword.  If  there  is  to  be  a  General  Election  late  in 
November  or  December,  all  the  political  parties  will  have  to 
subscribe  to  it,  and  every  candidate  will  pledge  himself  to  sup- 
port any  practical  scheme  that  may  be  put  forward.  The  pledge 
will  not  amount  to  much,  for  anyone  who  refused  to  subscribe 
to  what  he  believed  to  be  a  practical  proposal  for  a  League  of 
Nations  for  the  prevention  of  war,  with  the  awful  experiences 
of  this  war  before  his  eyes,  would  be  either  a  German  or  a 
fiend.  But  that,  unfortunately,  will  not  bring  the  ideal  an  inch 
nearer  to  the  grasp  of  human  statesmen.  It  is  certain,  there- 
fore, that  the  British  Government  will  continue  to  explore  the 
possibilities  of  the  idea  in  the  hope  of  evolving  a  workable 
scheme,  and  that  they  and  the  United  States  will  not  be  satisfied 
till  they  have  persuaded  their  Allies  to  join  with  them  in  setting 
up  some  new  instrument  of  international  machinery  for  the  pre- 
vention of  war,  which  they  will  call  the  League  of  Nations. 

The  British  Government  have  already  taken  one  important 
step.  They  appointed  some  months  ago  "a  very  well-chosen 
Committee" — the  description  is  Mr.  Balfour's — "on  which  inter- 
national law  and  history  were  powerfully  represented,"  to  ex- 
amine and  report.  The  report  has  been  drawn  up,  but  its  con- 
tents have  not  been  divulged.  Neither  Lord  Curzon  nor  Mr. 
Balfour  alluded  to  it;  they  did  not  even  say  it  had  been 
considered  by  the  War  Cabinet.  By  a  curious  coincidence  the 
same  official  reticence  is  being  observed  in  France.  There,  too, 
an  authoritative  Commission,  presided  over  by  M.  Bourgeois, 
was  appointed  by  the  Government,  and  issued  its  Report  last 
January.  But  it  has  not  yet  been  published  in  France,  and,  ac- 
cording to  Lord  Curzon,  no  copy  of  it  had  reached  the  British 
Government  on  June  26th.  Why  this  secretiveness,  both  in  Lon- 
don and  Paris?  If  there  had  been  practical  unanimity  in  favour 
of  the  project  there  could  be  no  reason  for  reserve.  But  it  is 
far  more  likely  that  the  Commissioners  have  reported  in  a  crit- 


A    LEAGUE    OF    NATIONS  173 

ical  spirit  and  that  the  two  Governments  do  not  think  it  discreet 
to  make  known,  the  fact,  lest  the  powerful  friends  of  the  move- 
ment should  be  discouraged.  Inasmuch  as  the  establishment  of 
a  League  of  Nations  has  been  put  forward  as  one  of  the  princi- 
pal war  aims  of  the  Allies,  it  would  be  a  little  disconcerting  if 
serious  differences  of  opinion  were  disclosed  among  the  Allies 
as  to  the  practicability  of  the  idea.  The  chief  sponsor  of  the 
League  of  Nations  is  President  Wilson,  and  it  is  in  the  United 
States  that  the  most  active  propaganda  in  its  favour  is  being 
carried  on.  They  will  have  the  whole  world  with  them — save 
an  unregenerate  Germany — if  they  can  offer  the  nations  of 
Europe  what  they  all  desire  above  everything  else,  viz. :  Security. 
But  hitherto  the  French  and  British  Governments  seem  to  have 
had  little  luck  in  the  search  which  they  have  conducted  on  their 
own  account. 

In  fact,  the  more  closely  Lord  Curzon's  pronouncement  is 
studied,  the  more  certain  does  it  become  that  at  any  rate  the 
immediate  realisation  of  the  League  of  Nations  as  a  League  to 
Enforce  Peace  is  outside  the  range  of  practical  politics.  (That 
description  of  the  League,  it  should  be  observed,  drew  heated 
protests  in  the  House  of  Commons  from  Pacifist  speakers, 
though  a  League  of  Nations  which  cannot  "enforce"  peace  will 
obviously  not  be  able  to  prevent  war,  and  the  prevention  of  war 
is  surely  the  final  cause  of  the  League.  Lord  Curzon,  for  ex- 
ample, pointedly  reminded  the  House  of  Lords  that  opinion  in 
this  country  was  "rather  in  advance  of  the  opinion  of  any  of 
our  Allies  save  the  United  States,"  and  he  said  that  if  the 
British  Government  went  ahead  too  quickly,  or  too  abruptly, 
there  was  danger  of  a  rebuff.  That  is  the  official  way  of  stating 
that  British  opinion  is  very  much  in  advance  of  Continental 
opinion,  and  the  truth  is  that  nothing  like  the  same  attention  has 
been  paid  to  the  subject  in  the  French  and  Italian  newspapers 
as  in  the  British.  And  although  the  Report  of  the  French  Com- 
mission has  not  been  published,  it  is  an  open  secret  that  its  judg- 
ment was  adverse  to  any  proposal  for  establishing  an  interna- 
tional force  which  shall  be  always  ready  to  enforce  the  decisions 
of  the  League  upon  a  recalcitrant  member.  That  is  a  fact  of  the 
utmost  consequence,  for  this  international  force  is  vital  to  the 
establishment  of  a  really  effective  League  of  Nations.  It  is  the 
very  keystone  of  the  arch.  The  French  Commission  has  knocked 
it  out,  and  it  may  be  shrewdly  suspected  that  the  British  Com- 


174  SELECTED    ARTICLES 

mittee  had  done  the  same.  Is  it  not,  therefore,  an  extraordinary 
fact  that  during  the  discussion  in  the  House  of  Commons  a 
month  later  not  a  single  member  alluded  to  the  French  decision, 
and  the  two  Ministers  steered  far  away  from  this  dangerous 
rock?  It  must  have  been  present  to  their  minds,  for  all  the 
speakers  avowed  themselves  warm  friends  of  the  idea  of  the 
League  of  Nations.  Nevertheless,  they  kept  this  circumstance 
in  the  background,  and  with  it  the  equally  important  fact  that 
Lord  Curzon  himself  had  also  most  unmistakably  ruled  out  this 
international  force  when  speaking  on  behalf  of  the  Government 
on  June  26th.  The  passage  is  so  important  that  it  must  be 
quoted  textually: — 

"We  must  try  to  get  some  alliance,  or  confederation,  or  conference, 
to  which  these  states  shall  belong,  and  no  state  in  which  shall  be  at  lib- 
erty to  go  to  war  without  reference  to  arbitration,  or  to  a  conference  of 
the  league,  in  the  first  place.  Then  if  a  state  breaks  the  contract  it  will 
become  ipso  facto,  at  war  with  the  other  states  in  the  league,  and  they  will 
support  each  other,  without  any  need  for  an  international  police,  in  punish- 
ing or  repairing  the  breach  of  contract.  Some  of  them  may  do  it  by 
economic  pressure.  This  may  apply  perhaps  to  the  smaller  states.  The 
larger  and  more  powerful  states  may  do  it  by  the  direct  use  of  naval  and 
military  force.  In  this  way  we  may  not  indeed  abolish  war,  but  we  can 
render  it  a  great  deal  more  difficult  in  the  future." 

Exit,  therefore,  the  international  force,  and  with  it,  as  I  believe, 
any  prospect  of  an  effective  League  of  Nations,  because  with  it 
goes  the  League's  sanction.  Lord  Curzon  leaves  the  coercion  of 
a  recalcitrant  Power  to  the  mutual  support  of  the  other  mem- 
bers of  the  League.  They  may  use  economic  pressure  or  they 
may  use  military  pressure.  Apparently  there  are  to  be  no  neu- 
trals. All  are,  ipso  facto  to  be  at  war  with  the  offending 
Power.  They  will  have  to  decide  among  themselves  who  shall 
do  the  fighting.  It  will  not  be  an  easy  or  a  quick  decision.  The 
chances  of  the  League  being  solidly  united  and  welded  together 
by  the  same  interests  and  the  same  motives  are  small.  The  more 
powerful  the  transgressor,  the  smaller  the  chances  and  the 
greater  the  reluctance  to  set  their  forces  in  motion.  The 
abandonment  of  the  idea  of  an  international  army  involves  the 
abandonment  of  the  real  efficiency  of  the  League  itself.  Mr. 
J.  M.  Robertson's  contention  was  sound  that  a  League  of  Na- 
tions ought  to  command  the  immediate  services  of  a  strong 
military  force,  and  he  suggested,  therefore,  that  "all  members 
of  the  League  should  undertake  to  contribute,  in  the  event  of  it 
being  required,  a  certain  contingent  of  military  force  to  be  used 


A    LEAGUE    OF    NATIONS  175 

under  the  direction  of  the  League  in  the  carrying  out  of  the 
League's  decisions."  That  is  the  clear  logic  of  the  position. 
But,  unfortunately,  as  the  French  Commission  admits,  it  is 
wholly  impracticable.  .  .  .  Let  anyone  consider  the  perpetual 
intrigues  of  the  campaigns  and  alliances  against  Frederick  the 
Great,  or  the  squabbling  in  the  Crimea  where,  as  Kinglake  says, 
the  alliance-  of  the  Western  Powers  "lay  in  abeyance  for  five 
days,"  while  St.  Arnaud  and  Raglan  were  completely  at  cross 
purposes.  Or,  coming  to  more  modern  days,  let  Mr.  MacNeil 
recall  the  tedious  wrangling  in  the  so-called  Concert  of  Europe 
over  the  simple  appointment  of  a  Mixed  Commission  of  Euro- 
pean officers  in  Macedonia  before  the  Balkan  wars,  or  the  irrita- 
tion that  arose  over  the  officering  of  the  gendarmerie  in  Persia, 
or  the  insane  jealousies  which  attended  the  preposterous  inter- 
national expedition  which  was  sent  to  China  to  put  down  the 
Boxers,  and  he  will,  if  he  is  candid,  expect  nothing  but  failure 
and  disappointment  from  an  international  army.  Does  he  find 
his  Irish  omens  so  encouraging?  If  the  flebilis  unda  of  a  ditch 
like  the  Boyne  cannot  be  bridged,  how  will  he  span  the  boundary 
rivers  of  Europe?  How  can  these  idealists  talk  airily  about  the 
establishment  of  an  international  army  or  the  dispatch  of  an  in- 
ternational expedition  to  deal  with  an  aggressor  against  the 
League  of  Nations,  when  they  see  how  long  it  has  just  taken 
Japan  and  the  United  States  to  come  to  an  understanding  on  the 
subject  of  joint  action  in  Siberia?  Every  hour  was  of  priceless 
value.  Both  Powers  knew  that  the  rehabilitation  of  Russia 
would  be  as  deadly  a  blow  to  Germany  as  her  humiliating  seces- 
sion from  the  ranks  of  the  Allies  was  a  complete  triumph.  Yet 
the  days  and  weeks  were  suffered  to  slip  by  for  political  reasons 
which  are  perfectly  well  known  and  thoroughly  understood. 
Will  it  be  any  different  when  there  is  a  League  of  Nations?  The 
military  difficulties  are  equally  insuperable.  Would  not  an  in- 
ternational army  require  an  international  General  Staff?  If  the 
international  army  were  to  be  ready  for  prompt  and  immediate 
action,  would  it  not  be  necessary  to  concert  measures  before- 
hand and  draw  up  plans  of  campaigns?  And  if  all  the  Great 
Powers  of  the  world  were  members  of  the  League,  would  not 
this  lead  to  extraordinary  embarrassing  situations?  A  proposal 
of  this  enormous  magnitude  is  either  practicable  or  impracti- 
cable.   If  it  is  fantastic,  the  super  structure  built  upon  its  inse- 


176  SELECTED    ARTICLES 

cure  foundation  comes  toppling  to  the  ground.  But  that  is  just 
what  the  enthusiastic  advocates  of  the  League  of  Nations  refuse 
to  recognize.  In  spite  of  Lord  Curzon's  explicit  rejection,  the 
international  army  still  continues  to  find  a  place  in  the  various 
schemes  that  are  put  forward,  because  it  is  necessary  for  their 
full  and  logical  completion,  and  the  fatal  difficulties  in  the  way 
of  its  effective  fulfilment  are  ignored  as  though  they  did  not 
exist. 

The  idea  of  the  League  of  Nations  is  most  popular  where 
least  understood.  Credulity,  as  usual,  is  being  freely  exploited. 
People  are  encouraged  to  assume  that  the  problem  is  simple, 
that  President  Wilson  has  an  infallible  plan,  and  that  the  duty 
of  the  Allies  is  to  follow  his  lead  with  trusting  faith.  Where  the 
dull  eyes  of  British  or  European  statesmen  cannot  pierce  the 
gloom,  his  can.  Where  they  fail  in  pure  idealism,  he  will  suc- 
ceed. Some  of  the  most  earnest  advocates  of  the  League  think 
it  enough  to  "Laugh  at  impossibilities,  And  cry  Tt  shall  be 
done.' "  Professor  Gilbert  Murray,  in  the  course  of  an  eloquent 
pamphlet,  dismisses  the  problem  of  how  to  enforce  peace  in  a 
single  sentence.  "A  number  of  nations,"  he  says,  "which  act  to- 
gether can  be  strong  enough  to  check  an  aggressor,  though  no 
one  of  them  alone  is  so  strong  as  to  threaten  its  neighbours." 
That  is  true  enough  as  a  bare  theoretical  possibility,  and  it  is 
the  only  passage  in  the  pamphlet  in  which  he  alludes  to  the  force 
at  the  disposal  of  the  League.  But  is  this  a  fair  way  to  present 
the  case,  when  it  has  taken  the  Allies  four  years  to  "check"  the 
prodigious  onslaughts  of  Germany,  and  the  war  is  still  being 
waged  on  Allied  soil?  In  all  these  discussions  it  is  Germany 
who  must  be  considered  as  the  potential  contract  breaker:  it  is 
Germany  who,  on  her  past  history  and  on  her  theory  of  the 
rights  of  the  strongest,  will  be  the  probable  aggressor;  it  is 
Germany,  therefore,  for  whose  "checking"  adequate  provision 
must  be  made.  The  truth  is  that  it  is  just  the  enormous 
strength  of  Germany  which  makes  the  advocates  of  the  League 
so  earnest  in  their  endeavours  to  establish  it,  and  which  also 
makes  its  effective  establishment  so  utterly  impossible. 

To  judge  from  their  Press,  Germans  believe  that,  if  the  worst 
comes  to  the  worst,  they  need  only  offer  to  join  what  is  con- 
temptuously called  "the  Wilson-Grey  League  of  Nations"  and 
the  Allies  will  welcome  them  with  joy  to  the  fold.    If  the  Allies 


A    LEAGUE    OF    NATIONS  177 

are  content  with  such  an  ending,  the  League  of  Nations  will  be 
a  death  trap  for  the  free  peoples  of  Europe,  whatever  it  may  be 
for  America,  which,  from  her  size  and  situation,  stands  in  a 
separate  category.  Germany,  in  that  case,  will  not  be  defeated, 
and  German  militarism  will  not  be  overthrown,  for  the  world 
will  not  be  made  safe  for  Democracy  until  the  Hohenzollerns 
have  been  dethroned  and  Germany  has  been  compelled  to  make 
restitution  for  her  crimes.  There  is  no  occasion  to  talk  about 
war  indemnities.  If  the  Central  Powers  are  made  to  pay  merely 
for  the  havoc  they  have  wrought,  and  to  restore  the  factories 
and  machinery  of  which  they  have  so  cunningly  stripped  the 
industrial  districts  of  Belgium  and  Northern  France,  they  will 
be  financially  crippled  for  long  years  to  come.  The  whole  Ger- 
man people,  which  shares  the  guilt  of  its  rulers  and  would 
greedily  share  their  plunder,  must  be  convinced  that  war  does 
not  pay  by  experiencing  the  ruinous  expensiveness  of  defeat. 
Moreover,  as  Mr.  Balfour  has  well  said,  one  of  the  principal 
duties  of  any  League  of  Nations  will  be  to  maintain  the  "toler- 
able territorial  status"  which  must  be  established  before  the 
League  can  start  with  any  prospect  of  success.  That  involves  a 
drastic  rearrangement  of  the  map  of  Europe,  involving  the  dis- 
memberment of  Austria-Hungary,  the  restoration  to  France  of 
Alsace-Lorraine,  the  creation  of  a  new  Poland,  the  destruction 
of  the  Turkish  Empire  and  the  re-creation  of  a  great  Russia. 
What  a  gigantic  programme  is  spread  before  us !  The  problems 
of  the  Congress  of  Vienna  were  childishly  simple  compared  with 
these,  and  surely  it  is  worth  while  bearing  in  mind  that  the 
plenipotentiaries  of  the  victorious  Allied  nations  quarrelled  so 
bitterly  among  themselves  at  that  Congress  that  they  were  act- 
ually on  the  point  of  turning  their  arms  against  one  another, 
when  they  were  startled  into  sanity  by  the  news  that  the  Devil 
had  broken  loose  again  and  was  marching  on  Paris.  Let  this, 
too,  be  remembered,  that  the  Congress  which  meets  at  the  con- 
clusion of  this  war  to  re-frame  the  boundaries  of  Europe  will 
be  required  to  satisfy  the  intense  longings  of  an  irrepressible 
Nationalism!  And  yet  at  one  and  the  same  time  it  is  to  be 
actuated  by  the  new  spirit  of  internationalism  and  brotherhood 
by  which  alone  the  world  can  be  saved. 

There  are,  indeed,  some  hardy  thinkers  who  profess  to  see  no 
contradiction  here,  and  scarcely  even  a  paradox.    International- 


178  SELECTED    ARTICLES 

ism,  they  say,  must  be  based  upon  nationalism,  which  is  very 
much  what  the  moral  philosophers  say  when  they  define  altruism 
as  enlightened  selfishness.  Fresh  from  his  prayerful  seances 
with  Madame  Krudener,  Alexander  I,  talked  in  precisely  the 
same  evangelical  style  rather  more  than  a  century  ago,  but  that 
did  not  prevent  him  from  falling  under  the  influence  and  prov- 
ing the  aptest  pupil  of  Metternich.  Everyone  knows  that  na- 
tionalism is  infinitely  stronger  than  internationalism.  Lawyers 
talk  about  the  surrender  of  sovereignty.  If  it  is  surrendered 
to-day,  it  will  be  taken  back  tomorrow.  Remember  Canning's 
exultant  cry  when  he  shook  himself — and  England — loose  from 
the  bonds  and  restraints  of  the  European  Alliance  which  had 
grown  so  irksome.  "No  more  Aeropagus  now !  England  will 
be  free  to  look  after  her  own  interests  in  her  own  way."  What 
is  the  real,  permanent,  instinctive  feeling  of  insular  Britons 
towards  Alliances  and  Leagues?  When  the  danger  from  which 
we  have  escaped  is  but  an  evil  memory,  when  the  peril  ahead 
seems  faint  and  distant,  when  the  enemy  is  fawning  and  protest- 
ing and  "Kamerading,"  and  insidiously  getting  back  to  his  foot- 
hold, what  will  be  the  instinct  of  the  average  Briton?  If  someone 
astutely  revives  the  once  popular  cry  of  "Splendid  Isolation," 
will  not  his  heart  leap  up  at  the  sound?  If  there  is  any  prospect 
of  war  and  British  interests  are  not  directly  and  vitally  con- 
cerned, and  if  the  League  of  Nations  desires  the  British  Govern- 
ment not  merely  to  use  the  British  Fleet — that  very  likely  would 
not  be  unpopular — but  to  dispatch  a  military  expedition  on  a 
large  scale,  involving  conscription,  what  then?  Who  would  be 
the  first  to  protest  if  not  the  Socialists  and  Radicals  who  are 
now  so  hot  and  strong  for  the  League?  These  surely  are  fair 
questions.  Great  Britain,  naturally,  has  always  been  the  most 
insularly  minded  Power  in  Europe.  She  has  from  time  to  time 
been  the  backbone  of  Continental  alliances,  but  always  when  the 
direct  danger  to  her  has  blown  over  she  has  relapsed  to  her 
ancient  insular  mood.  This  has  often  been  made  a  ground  of 
reproach  to  her;  it  has  been  said  that  she  is  a  bad  European. 
The  Liberal  tradition  especially  has  almost  always  been  a  non- 
European  tradition.  Is  the  country  now  ripe  for  a  permanent 
change?  He  is  bold,  indeed,  who  would  say  so.  We  shall  be 
told,  of  course,  that  the  new  internationalism  will  make  all  the 
difference  and  that  a  new  era  is  to  begin  after  the  war  which 


A    LEAGUE    OF    NATIONS  179 

will  continue  even  when  the  miseries  of  the  present  time  begin 
to  be  forgotten.  They  are  happy  who  believe  it;  they  will  be 
foolish  who  trust  to  it. 

At  present  the  Allied  statesmen  have  no  definite  scheme  of 
a  League  of  Nations  in  their  mind.  They  hope  to  make  a  begin- 
ning on  much  the  same  lines  as  the  co-operation  of  the  nations 
in  the  Hague  Conventions.  The  members  will  doubtless  give 
pledges  to  one  another  that  in  case  of  dispute  they  will  not  draw 
the  sword  until  after  they  have  laid  their  case  before  some 
Court  of  Conciliation,  but  whether  they  will  pledge  themselves 
to  wage  war  on  any  wilful  aggressor  is  a  far  more  doubtful 
proposition.  We  may  expect,  also,  a  widespread  extension  of 
the  system  of  arbitration  treaties,  on  the  lines  of  the  one  already 
in  existence  between  Great  Britain  and  the  United  States.  But 
the  first  searching  test  question  will  be  disarmament,  and  the 
nations  will  not  disarm  until  they  feel  that  they  are  safe  and  can 
trust  the  new  international  machinery  that  is  set  up  for  their 
mutual  protection.  There  can  be  no  Security — to  use  Mr.  Pitt's 
famous  catchword — unless  German  militarism  is  completely  de- 
stroyed, together  with  the  whole  German  system  of  which  it  is 
the  spirit  and  the  life.  On  that  the  first  beginnings  of  a  per- 
manent League  of  Nations  depend,  and  even  when  so  much  has 
been  accomplished,  nationalism  will  still  find  itself  stronger  than 
internationalism.  Extravagant  hopes  are  being  aroused  which 
can  only  end  in  bitter  disappointment. 


A   LEAGUE  OF  NATIONS1 

"When  the  League  of  Nations,"  said  Mr.  Arthur  Henderson, 
M.P.,  on  January  22,  1918,  "with  its  necessary  machinery  be- 
comes an  indispensable  part  of  the  national  and  international 
life,  then,  and  then  only,  will  it  be  possible  for  a  world  democ- 
racy to  go  forward  to  the  full  realization  of  its  prosperity." 

There  is  less  in  a  League  of  Nations  than  is  dreamed  of  in 
Mr.  Henderson's  philosophy,  or  even  in  that  of  President  Wilson, 
as  Sir  F.  E.  Smith  showed  in  his  address  to  the  New  York  Bar 
on  January  nth.  How  is  the  question  of  military  service  to  be 
settled,  since  if  one  Power  has  it  and  another  has  not,  the  weak 

1  Living  Age.  p.  113.    July  13,  1918. 


180  SELECTED    ARTICLES 

will  always  be  at  the  mercy  of  the  strong?  Or  the  freedom  of 
the  sea,  when  land  powers  might  outvote  sea  powers?  What  of 
the  alteration  of  frontiers  and  nationalities  in  the  course  of 
history?  Or  the  problems  of  the  air,  when  "peaceful"  factories 
could  turn  out  in  secret  unlimited  quantities  of  war  material? 
And  if  elementary  questions  such  as  these  are  unanswerable, 
what  becomes  of  your  League  of  Nations? 

The  League  of  Nations  is  no  modern  idea:  it  was  tried 
nearly  2,500  years  ago  and  found  wanting.  Go  from  Naples  to 
Paestum,  a  Life  of  Piranesi  in  your  hand,  and  you  will  see  the 
most  wonderful  remains  of  Greek  architecture  extant  with  the 
exception  of  the  temples  at  Athens.  Among  them  are  the  re- 
mains of  a  Doric  Basilica  which  Paranesi  etched  and  called  the 
House  of  the  Amphictionic  Council.  That  Council  was  the 
League  of  Nations  of  the  democracies  of  the  Ancient  World,  and 
its  history  is  not  without  interest. 

But,  you  say,  those  Ionians,  Dorians,  Phocians,  Thessalonians, 
Magnesians  and  the  rest  who  formed  the  League  were  not  na- 
tions, but  municipalities.  In  size,  perhaps ;  but  nations  they  were 
in  days  when  it  took  as  long  to  go  from  Athens  to  Messene  or 
from  Platea  to  Pella  as  it  takes  to  go  from  London  to  New 
York.  The  world  was  smaller  then,  and  analogies  must  be 
founded  on  position  and  not  on  population.  Everything  is  rela- 
tive. What  happened  when  this  Council  tried  to  enforce  its  own 
rules?  Look  at  its  history,  and  remember  that  in  the  days  of 
its  greatest  activity  Demosthenes  called  it  the  shadow  of  a 
shade.    Mr.  Henderson  will  please  note  that. 

The  Council  of  the  Amphictionic  League  was  made  up  of 
representatives  of  twelve  tribes,  each  with  two  votes.  It  met 
twice  a  year :  at  Delphi  in  the  spring,  at  Anthela  near  Thermop- 
ylae in  the  autumn.  Its  duties  were  to  watch  over  the  inter- 
ests of  the  Temple  of  Delphi  and  Sacred  Land;  to  regulate 
the  relations  of  the  leagued  states  in  peace  and  war;  to  act  as 
arbitrator;  to  take  charge  of  roads  and  bridges;  to  arrange  loans 
from  the  Treasury — and  a  levy  on  capital  was  not  an  unheard- 
of  measure  on  its  part;  to  supervise  the  Pythian  Games;  to 
erect  public  monuments,  one  to  Gorgias  the  orator,  for  instance, 
one  to  the  heroes  of  Thermopylae;  to  adjust  quarrels  between 
members  of  the  League,  as  in  the  case  of  the  complaint  of  the 
Plataeans  about  the  boastful  inscription  set  up  by  Sparta  on  the 


A    LEAGUE    OF    NATIONS  181 

monument  at  Delphi  commemorating  the  battle  of  Plataea;  to 
punish  offenders  against  international  law,  as  in  the  judgment 
passed  on  Ephialtes  for  his  treachery  in  showing  the  Persians 
the  secret  path  over  the  hills  which  enabled  them  to  destroy 
Leonidas  and  his  Immortals.  It  possessed  the  right  of  sanctu- 
ary, of  which  Orestes  took  advantage;  it  exempted  religious 
bodies  from  military  service.  The  Amphictionic  oath  bound 
each  state  not  to  level  an  offending  city  to  the  earth  and  not  to 
cut  off  the  water  supply  from  a  belligerent;  the  oath  thus  con- 
templated a  state  of  war  as  anything  but  abnormal.  And  how 
was  the  oath  carried  out?  Look  at  the  history  of  the  First 
Sacred  War:  the  very  name  is  an  irony.  The  city  of  Crisa 
levied  dues  on  the  pilgrims  who  passed  through  its  land  to  con- 
sult the  Delphic  Oracle,  the  Amphictionic  Council  declared  a 
Holy  War,  and,  after  a  favorable  response  from  Apollo  pro- 
ceeded to  divert  the  water  supply,  poison  it  with  hellebore,  and 
make  a  way  into  the  weakened  city,  which  was  thereupon  leveled 
with  the  ground:  the  Crisaean  plain  was  laid  waste  with  such 
"frightfulness"  that  it  was  still  a  scene  of  desolation  in  the  days 
of  Hadrian,  six  centuries  later. 

This  Association  of  democratic  neighboring  states,  with  their 
representatives  meeting  at  a  common  centre  to  transact  business 
of  the  League  and  to  celebrate  religious  rites,  with  its  record 
of  international  law,  its  binding  oaths,  its  claim  to  arbitrate,  so 
as  to  ameliorate  the  horrors  of  war,  its  nominal  equality  of  great 
and  small,  its  plea  for  self-determination  among  smaller  states, 
its  guarantees  against  the  abuse  of  power,  presents  an  extraor- 
dinary parallel  to  the  Hague  Conference  on  the  one  hand  and  to 
the  proposed  League  of  Nations  on  the  other.  The  result  was 
just  what  might  have  been  expected.  Powerful  democracies 
used  the  League  for  their  own  purpose,  observed  or  ignored 
their  obligations  to  suit  themselves;  there  was  no  redress.  Let 
those  who  hanker  for  a  League  of  Nations  recall  the  history  of 
the  democratic  Amphictionic  League;  see  it  becoming  the  in- 
strument of  one  powerful  party  after  another,  breaking  its  own 
laws,  its  own  oaths ;  see  Delphi  itself  taking  vengeance  on  Crisa, 
Thebes  on  Phocis,  Thespiae,  and  Plataea;  Argos  on  Mycenae, 
and  see  what  comes  of  it  in  the  end.  As  the  First  Sacred  War 
had  disclosed  one  member-city  poisoning  the  waters  of  another, 
so   the   Second   Sacred   War   showed   the   same   cynical   Welt- 


182  SELECTED    ARTICLES 

politik,  followed  in  this  instance  by  the  tragedy  of  Chaeronea 
and  the  rise  of  Macedon.  In  the  middle  of  the  fourth  century 
B.C.,  Thebes,  having  been  successful  in  getting  the  Spartans 
fined  for  their  seizure  of  the  Cadmea,  saw  an  opportunity  of 
using  the  League  in  the  same  way  against  the  rival  state  of 
Phocis.  A  number  of  prominent  Phocians  were  fined  for  alleged 
sacrilege,  the  League  decreeing  that  if  the  fine  were  not  paid 
within  the  time  prescribed,  their  lands  should  be  confiscated  for 
the  benefit  of  Delphi.  Thereupon  the  Phocians  seized  Delphi 
itself;  the  League  met  at  Thermopylae  and  decided  that  an 
Amphictionic  army  should  rescue  the  sacred  city,  whose  treas- 
ures were  being  used  by  the  Phocians  to  purchase  new  allies  in 
the  North.  Thessaly,  threatened  by  this  move,  turned  for  help 
to  Philip  of  Macedon,  and  thus  changed  the  history  of  the 
world.  While  Demosthenes  urged  the  cause  of  liberty  and 
thundered  out  his  Phillipics,  warning  the  Athenians  of  the  in- 
tention of  Macedon  to  subjugate  all  Greece,  the  League  went  on 
as  usual.  The  board  of  temple  builders  met  at  Delphi;  the 
Amphictionic  Council — with  the  trifling  exception  of  the  anti- 
Phocian  states — assembled  as  before;  Dorians  and  Ionians  sat 
side  by  side  and  talked  and  talked  and  talked  in  the  peaceful 
Council  Chamber,  and  held  the  Pythian  Games;  while  the  world 
outside  was  a  welter  of  blood  and  confusion  brought  on  it  by 
the  League. 

The  crazy  Declaration  of  London  was  the  fruit  of  the 
Hague  Conference;  the  rise  of  Macedon  the  fruit  of  the 
Amphictionic  League.  By  their  fruits  ye  shall  know  them  is  as 
true  of  leagues  and  conferences  as  of  men  and  states.  Has  the 
experience  of  the  past  no  value  for  the  future?  Are  we  like  the 
Bourbons,  forever  learning  nothing,  but,  unlike  them,  forever 
forgetting?  If  so,  we  shall  form  and  rely  upon  a  League  of 
Nations  and  talk  and  talk  and  talk,  and  cry  out,  when  it  is  too 
late,  for  the  regretted  whips  of  independent  states  in  place  of 
the  scorpions  of  "Allies"  in  a  League  of  Nations  who  work  in 
secret  and  reward  us  openly  with  the  penalties  of  a  stupidity 
born  of  sloppy  sentimentality,  the  offspring  of  self-deception. 

Fear  God  and  learn  to  take  your  own  part,  said  George  Bor- 
row of  the  ancient  city  of  Norwich.  Not  bad  advice!  If  fol- 
lowed it  will  be  more  likely  to  prevent  wrongdoing  than  will  re- 
liance on  the  insincerities  of  a  League  of  Nations. 


A    LEAGUE    OF    NATIONS  183 


THE   LEAGUE   TO   ENFORCE   PEACE1 

We  are  not  going  to  weary  our  readers  by  pointing  out 
again,  what  we  have  so  often  pointed  out  in  these  columns,  that 
the  Holy  Alliance,  though  started  with  the  most  genuine  and 
sincere  desire  to  form  a  League  to  Enforce  Peace,  ended  in  the 
erection  of  a  reactionary  tyranny,  and  that  it  took  all  the  efforts 
of  Castlereagh,  Wellington,  and  Canning,  together  with  en- 
lightened Whig  opinion  in  Britain,  to  prevent  it  from  bringing 
about  the  destruction  of  liberalism  throughout  the  world.  How 
this  happened  is  one  of  the  most  curious  examples  of  the  terrible 
nature  of  logic  when  working  unrestrained  in  human  affairs.  If 
you  have  Leagues  of  Powers  bound  by  a  great  common  object 
which  demands  large  sacrifices,  the  first  thing  that  the  con- 
stituent Powers  must  and  will  demand  is  a  mutual  guarantee  of 
each  other's  national  rights  and  interests.  Before  they  can  be 
sure  of  acting  unanimously  as  a  League  they  must  be  sure  of  not 
quarrelling  among  themselves.  But  they  cannot  be  sure  of  doing 
this  unless  they  are  sure  that  there  will  be  no  interference — no 
attempt  to  curtail  their  own  possessions  and  alter  their  own 
system  of  government.  Hence  any  kind  of  international  League 
is  always  bound  to  guarantee  the  status  quo.  But  the  status  quo 
may  in  some  particular  country  be  the  "negation  of  God  erected 
into  a  system."  This  first  stumbling-block  the  Holy  Alliance 
tried  to  some  extent  to  remove  by  means  of  periodic  Interna- 
tional Conferences  which  were  to  meet  every  three  years  and 
keep  the  various  states  of  the  world  in  good  order.  For  exam- 
ple, the  sixth  article  of  the  Holy  Alliance  bound  the  high  con- 
tracting Powers  to  hold  at  fixed  intervals  "meetings  consecrated 
to  great  common  objects  and  the  examination  of  such  measures 
as  at  each  one  of  these  epochs  shall  be  judged  most  salutary  for 
the  peace  and  prosperity  of  the  nations  and  for  the  maintenance 
of  the  peace  of  Europe."  The  first  of  these  meetings,  the  Con- 
ference held  at  Aix-la-Chapelle,  can  hardly  be  described  as 
a  success,  except  that  it  produced  a  perfectly  admirable  mem- 
orandum from  Castlereagh  in  which' he,  like  a  true  Briton,  tried 
to  find  a  sensible  via  media  between  the  two  extremes,  and, 
while  not  attempting  the  impossible,  to  do  something  practical 

1  Spectator,  October  14,  19 16. 


i84  SELECTED    ARTICLES 

for  the  cause  of  peace.  The  words  in  which  he  discusses  the 
Emperor  Alexander's  idea  of  a  universal  union  of  the  Powers 
are  so  good  that  we  cannot  resist  the  temptation  to  quote 
them: — 

"The  problem  of  a  Universal  Alliance  for  the  peace  and  happiness 
of  the  world,"  the  memorandum  runs,  "has  always  been  one  of  specu- 
lation and  hope,  but  it  has  never  yet  been  reduced  to  practice,  and  if  an 
opinion  may  be  hazarded  from  its  difficulty,  it  never  can  be.  But  you  may 
in  practice  approach  towards  it,  and  perhaps  the  design  has  never  been 
so  far  realized  as  in  the  last  four  years.  During  that  eventful  period  the 
Quadruple  Alliance,  formed  upon  principles  altogether  limited,  has  had, 
from  the  presence  of  the  sovereigns  and  the  unparalleled  unity  of  design 
with  which  the  Cabinets  have  acted,  the  power  of  traveling  so  far  out  of 
the  sphere  of  their  immediate  and  primitive  obligations,  without  at  the  same 
time  transgressing  any  of  the  laws  of  nations  or  failing  in  the  delicacy 
which  they  owe  to  the  rights  of  other  states,  as  to  form  more  extended 
alliances  ...  to  interpose  their  good  offices  for  the  settlement  of  difficulties 
between  other  states,  to  take  the  initiative  in  watching  over  the  peace  of 
Europe,  and  finally  in  securing  the  execution  of  its  treaties.  The  idea  of 
an  Alliance  Solidaire,  by  which  each  state  shall  be  bound  to  support  the 
state  of  succession,  government  and  possession  within  all  other  states  from 
violence  and  attack,  upon  condition  of  receiving  for  itself  a  similar  guar- 
antee, must  be  understood  as  morally  implying  the  previous  establishment 
of  such  a  system  of  general  government  as  may  secure  and  enforce  upon 
all  kings  and  nations  an  internal  system  of  peace  and  justice.  Till  the 
mode  of  constructing  such  a  system  shall  be  devised,  the  consequence  is  in- 
admissible, as  nothing  would  be  more  immoral  or  more  prejudicial  to  the 
character  of  government  generally,  than  the  idea  that  their  force  was  col- 
lectively to  be  prostituted  to  the  support  of  established  power,  without  any 
consideration  of  the  text  to  which  it  was  abused.  Till  a  system  of  ad- 
ministering Europe  by  a  general  alliance  of  aU  its  states  can  be  reduced 
to  some  practical  form,  all  notions  of  a  general  and  unqualified  guarantee 
must  be  abandoned,  and  the  states  must  be  left  to  rely  for  their  security 
upon  the  justice  and  wisdom  of  their  respective  systems,  and  the  aid  of 
other  states  according  to  the  law  of  nations." 

Before  we  leave  the  subject  of  the  Conference  at  Aix-la- 
Chapelle  we  must  not  forget  to  mention  the  curious,  but  no 
doubt  inevitable,  result  of  the  attempt  to  mitigate  the  hard  logic 
of  the  guaranteed  status  quo.  The  Conference  was,  in  effect, 
asked  to  act,  and  attempted  to  act,  as  a  kind  of  European  Su- 
preme Court  which  heard  appeals  and  received  petitions  of  all 
kinds  from  Sovereigns  and  subjects  alike.  For  example,  the 
Elector  of  Hesse  asked  to  be  allowed  to  exchange  his  meaning- 
less title  for  that  of  "King,"  a  request  which,  Mr.  Alison  Phil- 
lips tells  us,  was  refused  because  it  was  not  considered  expedient 
to  make  the  Royal  style  too  common!  The  people  of  Monaco, 
again,  presented  a  list  of  grievances  against  their  Prince,  while 
Bavaria  and  the  Hochberg  line  of  Princes  referred  to  the  Con- 
ference their  quarrel  about  the  succession  in  Baden.  Finally, 
the  situation  of  the  Jews  in  Austria  and  Prussia  was  brought 
under  discussion.     But  though  these  minor  issues  were  either 


A    LEAGUE    OF    NATIONS  185 

settled  or  got  rid  of,  it  will  be  found  that  jealousy  of  British  sea 
power  at  once  awoke,  and  threw  obstacles  in  the  way  of  even 
so  great  a  benefit  to  humanity  as  the  suppression  of  the  slave 
trade.  Though  the  Powers  had  agreed  in  principle  to  our 
carrying  out  this  immense  reform,  they  were  not  willing  to 
accept  that  mutual  right  of  search  by  which  we  sought  to  sup- 
press it.  Again,  when  it  came  to  an  attempt  to  mediate  between 
Spain  and  her  revolting  colonies,  the  Powers  could  not  agree. 
It  is  true  that  they  succeeded  in  calling  the  King  of  Sweden  to 
order;  but,  while  obeying,  he  protested  against  the  dictatorship 
arrogated  to  themselves  by  the  Great  Powers,  a  course  in  which 
he  was  backed  up  by  the  indignant  King  of  Wiirttenberg.  No 
wonder  that,  when  the  Conference  broke  up  with  a  considerably 
damaged  reputation,  Canning  made  the  cynical  but  common- 
sense  comment  that  "things  are  getting  back  to  a  wholesome 
state  again.  Every  nation  for  itself  and  God  for  us  all!  Only 
bid  your  Emperor  be  quiet,  for  the  time  for  Areopagus  and  the 
like  of  that  is  gone  by."  That,  we  fear,  must  be  our  comment 
on  all  schemes  like  that  of  the  League  to  Enforce  Peace. 

But  is  there  no  hope  for  peace?  Yes,  there  is.  If,  as  the 
result  of  this  war,  the  world  learns  that  it  does  not  pay  to  act 
the  part  of  Frederick  the  Great,  and  that  in  the  end  severe  pun- 
ishment falls  on  the  promoters  of  such  an  evil  policy,  and  if, 
further,  the  system  of  military  autocracy  can  be  made  to  give 
way  to  that  of  government  of  the  people  for  the  people  by  the 
people,  we  see  no  reason  to  doubt  that  peace  may  be  maintained 
for  another  generation.  More  than  that  it  is  not  safe  to  proph- 
esy. But  let  us  remember  always  that  even  if  universal  peace 
could  be  bought,  the  price  we  should  have  to  pay  for  it  would 
be  too  high.    The  price  is  international  slavery. 


A   LEAGUE  OF  NATIONS1 

Now,  I  want  to  call  attention  to  this,  that  once  we  have 
entered  into  a  league  of  nations  I  assume  that  the  Senator 
from  Montana  will  admit  that  this  league,  its  representative 
government,   of  whatever  kind  it  may  be,   which  has  not  yet 

1  By  Senator  Miles  Poindexter,  of  Washington.  Congressional  Record, 
p.   12662.  November   15,   1918. 


186  SELECTED    ARTICLES 

been  defined,  will  have  power  to  curb  any  one  of  its  con- 
stituent members  from  beginning  a  war  against  another  mem- 
ber. Otherwise  there  will  be  no  object  whatever  in  forming 
it,  as  it  would  be  no  advance  at  all  over  the  Hague  conven- 
tion which  already  exists,  the  worthlessness  of  which  in  the 
face  of  the  perversities  of  human  nature,  as  exemplified  by 
the  German  nation,  has  been  shown  to  all  the  world. 

Once  we  form  this  league,  that  league  having  the  power, 
the  league,  and  not  any  member  of  it,  will  determine  what  its 
powers  shall  be,  whether  they  shall  be  curtailed  or  whether 
they  shall  be  extended.  That,  in  general,  has  been  the  ten- 
dency of  the  Federal  Union  in  its  relations  with  the  states. 
The  inventions  of  science,  however,  and  the  spread  of  intel- 
ligence have  made  our  happy  domain  as  one  community.  Its 
independence,  its  sovereignty,  is  the  chief  jewel  in  its  crown. 
It  cannot  be  surrendered  without  a  struggle. 

Only  a  few  days  ago  on  the  floor  of  the  Senate  the  dis- 
tinguished chairman  of  the  Foreign  Relations  committee  said 
that  in  the  question  of  international  trade,  as  to  whether  or 
not  there  should  be  any  discrimination  between  the  United 
States  and  any  other  nation,  that  question  would  be  deter- 
mined by  the  league.  Now,  there  is  the  whole  proposition  ad- 
mitted away,  for  if  this  plan  is  adopted  the  power  of  deter- 
mination has  gone  from  the  United  States.  It  is  in  the  hands 
of  an  alien  power;  it  is  in  the  hands  of  rival  powers;  it  is  in 
the  hands  of  Europe.  The  United  States  will  have  sur- 
rendered its  birthright,  it  will  have  given  up  the  spirit  as  well 
as  the  fact  of  sovereignty.  Your  Monroe  doctrine  will  be 
absorbed  in  your  league  of  nations.  It  will  become  obsolete, 
as  some  of  the  internationalists  have  already  been  preaching, 
circulating  pamphlets  with  the  phrase,  "The  Monroe  doctrine 
an  obsolete  shibboleth."  That  will  become  a  realization  if  this 
league  of  nations  that  is  proposed  by  the  Senator  from  Montana, 
as  near  as  I  can  gather  his  idea,  is  carried  out. 

Now,  let  us  see.  In  the  first  place,  I  think  the  Senator  is 
too  optimistic,  and  I  might  say  idealistic,  to  assume  that  as  a 
result  of  this  war  the  same  passions  and  ambitions  that  have 
actuated  the  governments  of  nations  in  the  past  are  not  going 
to  be  in  full  play  in  the  evolution  of  the  future.  Your  league 
of  nations  is  established.    We  all  know  that  most  of  the  Euro- 


A    LEAGUE    OF    NATIONS  187 

pean  nations  have  never  accepted,  perhaps  none  of  them  in 
express  terms,  the  validity  of  the  position  taken  by  the  United 
States  in  setting  up  the  so-called  Monroe  doctrine.  They  have 
not  admitted  its  validity.  The  populations  of  these  powers  are 
going  to  increase,  the  struggle  for  existence,  for  bread,  is  going 
to  continue  in  the  future  as  it  has  in  the  past.  The  necessity 
for  expansion  and  for  colonization  are  not  matters  that  are 
determined  by  the  form  of  government  or  by  the  terms  of  peace. 
They  are  governed  by  fundamental  influences,  the  primal  in- 
stincts of  man,  and  they  are  going  to  be  in  as  full  play  after 
the  terms  of  peace  between  Germany  and  the  allies  have  been 
settled  as  they  were  at  the  time  the  Monroe  doctrine  was  set 
up  by  the  American  statesman  of  a  previous  generation.  Trade 
is  going  to  be  carried  on.  Rivalry  and  controversy  about  trade, 
about  property  rights,  about  personal  rights,  are  going  to  arise. 
Does  the  Senator  from  Oklahoma  suppose  that  Europeans  are 
not  going  to  seek  business,  to  acquire  property,  to  have  rights  in 
Mexico,  in  Brazil,  in  the  Argentine  Republic  in  the  future  as 
they  have  in  the  past?  If  he  does,  then  it  seems  to  me  he  leaves 
out  of  account  the  necessary  continuity  of  the  ambitions  and 
activities  of  mankind.  They  are  going  to  continue  these  ac- 
tivities. 

Now,  let  us  suppose  that  some  question  of  that  kind  arises. 
The  league  of  nations  is  in  control.  We  set  up  the  Monroe 
doctrine  in  opposition  to  some  proposition  of  a  European  mem- 
ber of  this  league,  of  a  protectorate  or  direct  government  con- 
trol in  order  to  protect  the  property,  or  the  trade,  or  the  person 
of  its  nationals  in  Central  or  South  America  or  in  Mexico. 
What  is  the  result?  It  inevitably  goes  before  the  league.  The 
constituted  authority  of  the  league  will  pass  on  it,  not  the  United 
States.  They  will  determine  it.  Do  you  suppose  that  they  are 
going  to  accept  for  their  guidance  the  Monroe  doctrine,  which 
has  never  been  admitted  by  them  and  which  the  United  States 
alone,  for  its  protection  and  for  the  preservation  of  a  demo- 
cratic form  of  government,  has  set  up  and  maintained  by 
physical  power?  Of  course  not.  They  are  going  to  determine 
it  according  to  their  own  ideas.  The  sovereignty  of  the  United 
States  in  maintaining  its  doctrine,  its  principles,  its  tradition, 
its  Constitution  will  be  gone. 

In  the  second  place,  Mr.  President,  a  league  of  nations  as 


188  SELECTED    ARTICLES 

proposed  by  the  Senator  from  Oklahoma  and  the  Senator  from 
Montana  and  the  Senator  from  Mississippi  (Mr.  Williams) 
who  is  not  here,  but  whom  I  have  heard  express  himself  on 
this  floor  on  that  subject,  would  necessitate,  if  we  are  going 
to  be  governed  by  law,  a  revision  of  the  Constitution  of  the 
United  States.  I  know  it  has  become  quite  unpopular 
nowadays  to  -refer  a  question  to  the  constitution.  But  this 
league  of  nations  which  is  proposed  assumes,  if  it  assumes 
anything  at  all,  that  the  ultimate  control  in  regard  to  war  or 
peace  rests  in  the  league.  Under  the  Constitution  of  the  United 
States  it  rests  in  the  Government  of  the  United  States,  and  if 
you  take  it  away  from  that  Government  and  submit  it  to  a 
league,  then  you  set  aside  your  Constitution  in  effect,  whether 
you  do  it  expressly  or  not. 

The  idea  that  is  always  assumed,  that  such  a  league  as  is 
now  proposed  is  in  the  interest  of  peace,  is  in  the  face  of  all 
history.  We  did  not  even  prevent  war  in  the  United  States 
by  forming  a  Federal  Union.  The  most  gigantic  war  that  the 
world  had  ever  seen  up  to  that  time  occurred  between  the  con- 
stituent members  of  the  league,  or  the  Union,  as  it  was  called 
in  that  case.  The  Senator,  as  I  said  before,  can  not  stop  the 
rivalries  and  ambitions  of  men  by  joining  them  in  a  Federal 
league.  They  are  going  to  continue  whether  you  have  a  Federal 
league  or  not.  The  undertaking  to  interfere  with  the  sovereign 
right  of  the  United  States  to  determine  its  policy;  to  set  up 
a  Monroe  doctrine,  if  it  sees  fit;  to  levy  a  tariff  against  other 
nations ;  to  make  such  shipping  regulations  as  it  proposed ;  and 
to  give  preferences  to  its  own  ships  in  passing  through  the 
Panama  Canal,  if  it  wants  to,  as  against  the  ships  of  other 
nations,  will  lead  to  trouble  and  to  warfare  instead  of  to  that 
dream  of  peace  which  the  Senator  from  Oklahoma  has  in 
mind.  As  a  member  of  the  league  instead  of  following  the 
advice  of  Washington  and  keeping  aloof  as  far  as  possible  from 
the  embroilments  of  other  nations,  we  would  be  inextricably  in- 
volved in  the  increasing  complications  of  race  and  a  party  to 
every  quarrel  which  growing  populations  and  the  struggle  for 
land  and  trade  will  inevitably  force  upon  the  world. 


A    LEAGUE    OF    NATIONS  189 


REED  DENOUNCES  LEAGUE  PLAN1 

Reasons  for  vigorous  opposition  to  President  Wilson's 
League  of  Nations  project  were  enumerated  by  Senator  James 
A.  Reed,  of  Missouri,  in  an  address  at  the  dinner  of  the 
Society  of  Arts  and  Sciences  at  the  Hotel  Biltmore.  Senator 
Reed  was  one  of  the  four  speakers  who  had  Been  invited  by 
the  society  to  discuss  the  subject  of  the  League  of  Nations,  and 
the  views  he  expressed  frequently  elicited  vigorous  rounds  of 
applause. 

The  other  speakers,  all  of  whom  preceded  him,  were  advo- 
cates of  the  league  idea.  They  were  Professor  Franklin  C. 
Giddings,  of.  Columbia  University;  Oscar  Straus  and  A. 
Lawrence  Lowell,  president  of  Harvard. 

Senator  Reed  explained  that  by  entering  such  a  league  the 
United  States  would  sacrifice  its  right  to  independence  of 
thought  and  action  in  its  relations  with  other  nations.  He 
pointed  out  also  that  such  a  sacrifice  would  make  impracticable 
in  certain  circumstances  the  maintenance  of  national  dignity  in 
the  course  of  the  settlement  of  disputes  of  the  character  that 
may  be  illustrated  by  incidents  that  have  had  to  do  with  Amer- 
ican relations  with  Japan,  Mexico  and  Colombia. 

He  pointed  out  that  between  certain  governments  of  Euro- 
pean countries  there  might  always  be  a  certain  community  of 
interests  which,  at  times,  might  be  opposed  to  American  ideals. 
Therefore  he  advocated  an  adherence  to  Washington's  policy 
concerning  entangling  alliances,  He  said,  in  part: 

Surrender  of  Rights 

"What  I  am  just  about  to  say  applies  to  a  real  League  of 
Nations,  one  capable  of  rendering  decisions  in  all  international 
controversies  and  in  enforcing  its  decrees  when  rendered.  It 
is  scarcely  worth  while  to  discuss  any  other  kind  of  league, 
because,  if  created,  it  would  be  without  much  power  for  either 
good  or  evil. 

"The  American  colonists  fought  to  throw  off  foreign  control. 
They  died  to  establish  the  right  of  the  people  of  America  to 

1  Report  of  a  speech  by  Senator  Reed  of  Missouri,  before  the  Society 
of  Arts  and  Sciences,  New  York,  December  29,  1918.  Reprinted  from  the 
New  York  Evening  Journal,  December  30,  19 18. 


igo  SELECTED    ARTICLES 

control  their  own  destiny.  I  am  unalterably  opposed  to  sur- 
rendering the  rights  thus  attained  to  any  international  league, 
international  congress,  or  international  court,  composed  of  the 
representatives  of  kings,  kaisers,  czars,  soviet,  parliaments  or 
Bolsheviki. 

"The  Constitution  ordains  that  a  Congress  elected  by  the 
people  of  the  United  States  shall  have  the  exclusive  right  'to 
declare  war,  raise  and  support  armies,  provide  and  maintain  a 
navy,  and  make  rules  for  the  government  and  regulation  of  the 
land  and  naval  forces,  to  suppress  insurrections  and  repel  in- 
vasions.' 

"The  proposed  League  of  Nations  contemplates  the  transfer, 
in  whole  or  in  part,  of  these  powers  to  the  representatives  of 
foreign  governments  sitting  as  members  of  an  international 
court  or  league.     Against  this  I  solemnly  protest. 

Genius  of  Republic 

"The  genius  of  our  Republic  is  that  all  of  its  concerns,  great 
and  small,  must  be  determined  by  the  unrestrained  will  of  its 
sovereign  citizens,  constitutionally  expressed.  I  cannot  consent 
to  substitute  the  will  of  any  tribunal  upon  which  foreigners  sit 
for  the  will  of  the  American  voter. 

"The  right  of  self-determination  is  the  soul  of  sovereignty. 
A  nation  which  yields  that  right  in  any  degree  loses  to  that 
extent  its  sovereignty.  If  it  yields  in  matters  of  vita]  concern 
it  ceases  to  be  a  sovereign  and  becomes  a  vassal  State.  In- 
superable objections  to  any  league  of  nations  are  found  in  the 
following  points : 

"(i)  The  members  of  the  league  or  the  International  Court 
set  up  by  the  league  will  be  named  by  the  ruling  Powers  of 
Europe.  These  Powers,  as  they  existed  sixty  days  ago,  as  they 
to-day  exist  in  part,  as  they  will  doubtless  again  soon  spring  up, 
are  united  by  ties  of  consanguinity  and  affinity  of  the  closest 
character.  Time  forbids  pursuing  the  royal  pedigrees.  It  is 
enough  to  state  the  living  relationship  of  George  the  Fifth. 

British  Royal  Ties 

"Mother — Princess  Alexandra  of  Denmark. 
"Sister — Princess   Maud,  married  to  Haakon  VII,  King  of 
Norway. 


A    LEAGUE    OF    NATIONS  191 

"Uncle — Alfred,  Duke  of  Edinborough,  married  to  Marie, 
Grand  Duchess  of  Russia. 

"First  Cousin — Princess  Marie,  married  to  Ferdinand,  King 
of  Rumania. 

"First  Cousin — Princess  Beatrice,  married  to  Alphonse,  In- 
fanta of  Spain. 

"First  Cousin — Princess  Helena,  married  to  Christian,  Prince 
of  Schleswig-Holstein. 

"Uncle — Prince  Arthur,  Duke  of  Connaught,  married  to 
Louise  Marguerite. 

"Aunt — Princess  Victoria,  married  to  Frederick  William, 
father  of  William  II,  Emperor  of  Germany. 

"Cousin — Ernest  August  was  King  of  Hanover. 

"First  Cousin — Nicholas  II,  formerly  Emperor  of  Russia. 

"First  Cousin — William  II,  Emperor  of  Germany. 

"Every  European  monarch  is  in  fact  united  either  by  blood 
or  marriage  to  every  other  European  monarch. 

"If  the  ruling  monarchs  are  to  be  dethroned,  the  question  as 
to  whether  their  successors  will  be  Bolsheviki,  anarchistic,  so- 
cialistic or  real  statesmen  remains  to  be  settled. 

Prejudiced  Tribunal 

"(2)  The  nations  of  Europe  have  many  interests  in  common 
which  may  at  any  time  conflict  with  interests  of  the  United 
States.  Therefore  questions  which  are  vital  to  us  must  be  sub- 
mitted to  a  prejudiced  tribunal. 

"(3)  The  Monroe  Doctrine  must  be  yielded  in  toto,  because 
a  League  of  Nations  effective  to  preserve  world  peace  cannot 
leave  out  questions  which  directly  affect  half  of  the  world. 

"The  fathers  of  the  republic  warned  us  against  entangling 
alliances.  Their  advice  became  the  natural  creed.  Following  it 
we  have  outstripped  all  of  the  nations  of  the  world,  and  out- 
run the  imagination  of  the  dreamers  of  the  past. 

"In  more  than  one  hundred  years  we  have  not  had  a  single 
European  war,  except  the  trivial  skirmish  with  Spain.  That 
contest,  in  fact,  arose  over  atrocities  committed  in  sight  of 
our  coast  upon  the  inhabitants  of  Cuba.  It  was,  therefore,  more 
an  American  than  European  contest. 

"When  finally,  on  April  6,  1917,  we  entered  the  world  war, 


192  SELECTED    ARTICLES 

our  greatness  enabled  us  to  speedily  force  a  decision  against 
the  greatest  military  power  ever  created.  We  preserved  the 
civilization  of  Europe. 

No  Foreign  Dictation 

"Shall  we  substitute  for  this  ancient  and  successful  policy 
one  which  makes  us  a  party  to  every  European  quarrel,  involves 
us  in  every  war  of  the  world,  and  compels  us  to  conscript  our 
young  men  to  do  service  upon  every  sea  and  in  every  land  at 
the  dictation  of  the  members  of  a  league  of  nations,  whether 
composed  of  Bolsheviki,  kings,  presidents  or  Soviets? 

"I  will  never  give  my  consent  that  American  citizens  shall 
be  ordered  to  battle  by  the  majority  vote  of  an  international 
League  or  Congress  composed  of  the  representatives  of  for- 
eign governments,  many  of  which  are  laggards  in  the  march 
of  civilization  and  exponents  of  autocracy  and  tyranny. 

"I  will  never  give  my  consent  to  the  change  of  a  single 
American  policy  by  the  vote  of  the  Grand  Turk,  whether  he 
preside  in  a  harem,  officiate  in  the  Temple  of  Mohammed  or  sit 
as  a  member  of  an  international  congress;  to  the  ruler  of  Rus- 
sia, whether  he  be  of  blood  royal  or  blood  Bolsheviki;  to  the 
King  of  Bulgaria,  whether  he  be  of  Caucasian  or  Mongolian 
breed;  to  a  Prince  of  the  House  of  Hohenzollern,  inured  to 
murder  and  trained  to  plunder;  or  to  a  scion  of  the  House  of 
Hapsburg,  whose  long  and  infamous  career  is  written  broad  on 
bloody  pages  of  history. 

Selfish  Interests 

"Neither  am  I  content  to  yield  these  powers  to  their  so- 
cialistic or  anarchistic  successors,  who  for  the  hour  pose  as 
exponents  of  republicanism.  Nor  am  I  willing  to  give  the  de- 
cision to  Servia,  Rumania,  Italy,  Montenegro  or  Greece,  which, 
although  our  Allies  for  the  day,  nevertheless  are  divided  from 
us  in  language,  history,  aspirations  and  forms  of  government. 

"I  could  not  even  give  my  consent  to  allow  our  great  and 
puissant  Allies  and  friends,  England  and  France,  to  share  in 
the  control  of  our  national  destiny. 

"I  cannot  forget  that  nations,  like  individuals,  are  controlled 
by  self-interest,  and  sometimes  by  the  passions  of  the  hour. 


A    LEAGUE    OF    NATIONS  193 

"In  any  league,  however  organized,  the  selfish  interests  of 
each  nation  will  be  forever  predominant  in  its  heart. 

"It  follows  that  as-  these  interests  may  at  any  moment  con- 
centre against  the  interests  of  the  United  States,  our  rights,  our 
liberties,  nay,  our  very  national  life,  may  be  taken  by  the  votes 
of  prejudiced  kings  or  potentates  controlled  by  their  own  sel- 
fish interests. 

Meaning  of  League 

"What  is  meant  by  the  League  of  Nations?  Here  we  are 
confronted  by  several  important  facts: 

"First:  The  project  of  a  League  of  Nations  is  no  new  dis- 
covery. It  is  some  thousands  of  years  old.  In  the  successive 
ages  it  has  appeared  in  various  forms.  Generally  it  embraces 
every  sort  of  intellectual  vagary  and  poetic  fancy. 

"It  is  referred  to  as  'a  parliament  of  man,  and  confedera- 
tion of  the  world/  which,  as  I  understand  it,  is  a  sort  of  in- 
ternational mutual  admiration  society  with  the  Sermon  on  the 
Mount  for  a  constitution  and  the  Apostolic  Creed  for  a  guide. 

"In  that  seraphic  congregation  all  men  are  to  be  good,  all 
women  fair,  all  thoughts  holy,  all  songs  inspired,  and  gentle  love 
with  golden  sceptre  is  to  rule  the  human  heart.  The  chief 
trouble  with  the  vision  is  that  it  can  only  be  realized  in 
Heaven. 

"There  is  a  second  plan:  That  the  nations  shall  submit  all 
disputes  to  the  league  itself  or  a  tribunal  it  sets  up.  Whereupon 
the  litigants  shall  be  free  to  obey  or  disobey,  as  may  suit  their 
own  hearts'  sweet  content.  Of  what  avail  is  such  a  thing  as 
that?     It  is  utterly  innocuous.     It  accomplishes  nothing. 

"An  international  agreement,  unbacked  by  force,  is  a  thing 
of  words,  to  be  ruthlessly  disregarded  when  any  great  power 
believes  its  vital  interests  are  at  stake. 

Violate  Constitution 

"The  third  plan  calls  for  a  League  of  Nations  with  jurisdic- 
tion either  by  itself  or  through  the  instrumentality  of  a  court 
to  determine  all  international  controversies.  It  is  to  be  backed 
by  an  international  army  powerful  enough  to  compel  all  nations 
to  obey  the  decree  rendered. 


194  SELECTED    ARTICLES 

"This  is  the  only  proposition  with  substance  to  it.  It  is,  in 
fact,  the  real  intent  and  purpose  of  the  authors  of  the  League 
of  Peace.  To  such  a  tribunal,  armed  with  such  tremendous 
powers,  it  is  proposed  to  submit  all  international  questions. 

"It  is,  therefore,  perfectly  clear: 
"(a)     That  by  entering  such  a  league,  we  surrender  to  Euro- 
pean potentates  and  powers  a  part  of  our  sovereignity. 
"(b)  We  violate  our  Constitution  by  surrendering  to  foreign  na- 
tions the  power  reserved  to   Congress  to  declare  war  and  to 
make  peace. 

"(c)  We  take  from  the  American  people  the  right  of  self- 
government  and  compel  them  to  submit  the  fate  of  their  coun- 
try to  the  decision  of  tribunals  composed  of  aliens  representing 
foreign  Governments  and  peoples. 

Foreign  War  Service 

"(d)  We  compel  our  citizens  to  serve  in  foreign  wars  by 
the  orders  of  the  representatives  of  foreign  governments. 

"(e)  We  bind  ourselves  to  assist  in  the  creation  of  an  in- 
ternational standing  army,  which  to  be  effective  must  be 
strong  enough  to  overwhelm  any  nation,  including  America,  and 
which  will,  in  all  probability,  be  commanded  by  a  foreign  gen- 
eral. 

"How  can  any  man  advocate  so  monstrous  a  proposition? 
Who  dares  take  from  the  American  people  the  right  to  con- 
trol America?  Who  would  transfer  the  fate  of  the  only  real 
republic  on  earth  to  the  arbitrament  of  foreign  despots,  presi- 
dents, Soviets,  or  Bolshevists?" 


LOWELL  DISCUSSES  LEAGUE  OF  NATIONS  1 

President  A.  Lawrence  Lowell  of  Harvard  University,  speak- 
ing before  the  Society  of  Arts  and  Sciences  at  the  Hotel 
Biltmore  Sunday  night,  urged  the  formation  of  a  League  of 
Nations  in  order  that  justice  might  be  attained  in  the  world,  his 

1  Report  of  speech  by  A.  Lawrence  Lowell,  President  of  Harvard  Uni- 
versity, before  the  Society  of  Arts  and  Sciences,  New  York,  December  29, 
1918.     Reprinted  from  the  New  York  Times,  December  31,   1918. 


A    LEAGUE    OF    NATIONS  195 

remarks  forming  part  of  a  debate  that  aroused  much  interest 
and  further  discussion  yesterday. 

"There  are  one  or  two  difficulties  which  confront  us  when 
we  consider  the  formation  of  a  League  of  Nations,"  he  said. 
"People  ask,  'Of  what  nations  shall  such  a  league  consist?'  The 
organization  which  I  belonged  to  for  three  and  a  half  years  has 
taken  great  pains  not  to  answer  that  question,  believing  that 
the  answer  would  depend  largely  upon  the  issue  of  this  war — 
and  I  believe  that  the  war  has  settled  that  issue. 

"A  perfect  League  of  Nations,  in  a  perfect  world,  would 
undoubtedly  be  one  where  all  mankind  was  organized  into 
free  nations  and  all  were  bound  together  in  a  great  league  of 
humanity.  But  one  does  not  begin  with  perfection.  One  begins 
with  the  existing  things,  and  it  is  surely  obvious  today  that 
the  only  nations  that  can  initiate  a  League  of  Nations  are  the 
nations  that  have  won  this  war.  They  may  let  in  others  when- 
ever they  prove  themselves  trustworthy,  and  we  hope  that  many 
nations  will  prove  themselves  trustworthy,  but  it  is  not  necessary 
to  go  too  far  at  once. 

"Now  I  want  to  take  up  two  or  three  objections  very  com- 
monly suggested  to  a  league  of  nations.  One  is  that  'Washing- 
ton never  did  so  in  his  day.'  Now,  what  did  George  Washington 
do  in  his  day?  He  tried  to  prevent  war.  For,  mind  you,  be- 
fore the  adoption  of  the  Constitution,  we  were  very  close  to  war 
between  many  of  the  States,  and  doubtless  war  would  have 
come.  He  tried  to  prevent  war  by  welding  those  States  to- 
gether in  such  a  way  that  they  would  not  fight  with  one  another. 
That  was  as  far  as  it  was  wise  for  him  to  go. 

"We  were  drawn  into  a  war  which  began  between  Russia 
and  Germany.  We  are  nearer  nowadays,  and  there  is  scarcely 
any  part  of  the  world  so  remote  as  the  two  ends  of  those 
thirteen  Colonies  were.  Let  me  say  this :  Washington  was  a 
great  man,  because  he  looked  the  facts  of  his  day  in  the 
face,  and  we  are  only  worthy  to  be  his  descendants  if  we  look 
the  facts  of  our  day  in  the  face. 

"The  second  objection  which  is  raised  is  this:  It  will  inter- 
fere with  our  sovereignty.  It  has  nothing  whatever  to  do  with 
our  sovereignty.  People  say  Congress  has  not  the  power  to 
declare  war  or  refuse  to  declare  war.  Congress's  power  to  de- 
clare war  or  not  to  is  not  in  any  way  affected.    We  simply  agree 


ig6  SELECTED    ARTICLES 

that  in  certain  conditions  we  will  declare  war,  but  Congress  is 
not  bound  to  do  it.  It  does  not  interfere  with  Congress  in  the 
least.  It  does  morally  bind  Congress  to  declare  war,  yes,  cer- 
tainly, every  treaty  morally  binds  the  country  to  do  something. 

"More  treaties,  each  of  them  binding  the  country  to  do  or 
not  to  do  certain  things,  have  been  made  in  the  last  fifty  years 
than  in  all  the  history  of  the  world  before.  Why?  Because 
countries  have  found  it  was  worth  while  to  bind  themselves  if 
others  were  so  bound  also. 

"Now,  there  is  a  third  objection  that  I  want  to  take  up 
which  is  always  brought  forward.  How  about  the  big  and  little 
nations?  Is  it  seriously  supposed  that  any  one  is  going  to  allow 
nations  in  a  league  of  nations — to  allow  nations  like  Guatemala, 
for  instance — to  have  the  same  votes  as  the  United  States?  It 
is  easy  enough,  in  a  consideration  like  that,  to  say  it  is  absurd 
and  throw  it  down.  But  no  sensible  person  would  believe  that 
was  to  be  done  for  one  moment. 

"We  are  told  again  that  our  men  will  have  to  go  and  fight 
in  every  broil  in  Europe.  But,  surely,  the  object  of  the  League 
of  Nations  is  to  prevent  broils  in  Europe.  If  the  league  will 
not  prevent  them  then  it  is  a  failure.  But  does  any  one  doubt 
that  a  league  made  of  the  great  nations  of  the  earth  can  stop 
any  broils  in  Europe?  The  object  of  such  a  league  is  to  prevent 
war.  Of  course,  if  the  league  will  not  prevent  war  then  it  is  a 
failure.    But  it  will. 

"A  man  cannot  be  an  orderly  citizen  in  a  disorderly  com- 
munity, and  the  trouble  with  us  in  the  present  day  is  that  cer- 
tain nations  are  trying  to  be  orderly  and  decent  in  a  disorderly 
condition  of  the  world.  The  nations  of  the  world  are  in  just 
the  same  situation  that  you  would  have  been  in  in  a  frontier 
town  of  the  olden  days,  when  it  was  necessary  for  you  to  carry 
a  pistol.  There  is  only  one  way  to  stop  it,  and  that  is  to  make 
the  world  an  orderly  one. 

"And  I  want  to  ask  you,  are  the  resources  of  civilization  ex- 
hausted? Is  this  sort  of  thing  bound  to  repeat  itself  every 
little  while?  Are  the  most  civilized  races  in  the  world  going 
to  try  to  exterminate  each  other  with  ever-increasing  ferocity 
and  ever-increasing  ingenuity  of  weapons?  Is  the  manhood  of 
the  next  century  to  be  devoted  to  seeing  how  much  more  wicked 
we  can  be? 


A    LEAGUE    OF    NATIONS  197 

"Are  we  to  develop  the  one  horror  that  did  not  take  place 
in  this  war,  but  was  talked  of,  and  that  is  dropping  poison  bombs 
from  airplanes  on  undefended  citizens?  Or,  is  it  possible,  is  it 
inconceivable,  is  it  folly,  to  say  that  the  world  can  be  brought 
to  a  state  of  peace  and  orderliness  in  which  scraps  between  the 
nations  occur  no  more  than  scraps  among  the  inhabitants  of 
the  town  of  New  York?  Is  that  part  of  dreams,  of  fancy? 
And  if  that  can  take  place,  shall  we  stand  by  and  say,  'Civilize 
if  you  can,  but  don't  trouble  us?' " 


THE   CORNERSTONE    OF    PEACE1 

The  American  Economist  submits  that,  notwithstanding  the 
lofty  aims  of  Mr.  Wilson,  the  variety  of  interpretations  placed 
upon  the  proposal  for  a  League  of  Nations,  and  the  manifest 
confusion  of  thought  in  the  proposal  itself,  affords  abundant 
ground  for  serious  reflection. 

It  is  said  that  the  league  and  the  clear  definitions  of  its  ob- 
jects "is  in  a  sense  the  most  essential  part  of  the  peace  settle- 
ment itself";  and  at  the  same  time  that  "it  cannot  be  formed 
now." 

It  is  said  that  the  league  must  not  remain  in  abeyance  until 
the  work  of  reconstruction  begins,  for  it  must  form  the  most 
essential  part  of  the  peace  settlement  itself. 

It  is  said  that  the  proposed  league  has  nothing  to  do  with  the 
economic  system  "which,"  as  the  London  Times  says,  "each 
future  member  of  the  league  may  have  devised  to  suit  itself"; 
whereas  Mr.  Wilson  said: 

Fourth,  and  more  specifically,  there  can  be  no  special,  selfish  economic 
combinations  within  the  league  and  no  employment  of  any  form  of  economic 
boycott  or  exclusion  except  as  the  power  of  economic  penalty  by  exclusion 
from  the  markets  of  the  world  may  be  vested  in  the  League  of  Nations 
itself  as  a  means  of  discipline  and  control. 

It  is  said  that  the  League  of  Nations  at  first  must  exclude 
Germany;  and  yet  according  to  Mr.  Wilson  the  league  must  be 
the  most  essential  part  of  the  peace  settlement  itself,  and  Ger- 
many, of  course,  is  to  participate  in  the  peace  settlement. 

It  is  said  that  the  league  must  forever  exclude  economic 
weapons  except  as  a  means  of  discipline  and  control ;  and  yet  the 

1  American  Economist,     p.  222.     October  18,  1918. 


ig8  SELECTED    ARTICLES 

English  papers  declare  that  England  must  not  surrender  her  eco- 
nomic weapons.    For  example,  the  London  Times  says: 

It  is  true  enough  that  our  own  Free  Trade  system  was  probably  in- 
itiated in  the  first  instance  in  the  sanguine  hope  that  the  whole  world  would 
follow  the  example.  It  found  us,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  at  the  very  crisis  of 
our  fortunes,  without  a  single  imitator  among  the  great  nations  of  the 
earth,  very  largely  dependent  upon  our  enemies  for  supplies,  and  per- 
meated with  hostile  agents.  That  position  is  now  being  redeemed  under 
the  stress  of  war.  We  shall  not  lightly  return  hereafter  to  our  old  helpless 
tolerance. 

It  would  appear  that  a  League  of  Nations  as  the  corner- 
stone of  peace,  wherein  each  nation  would  surrender  a  large 
portion  if  not  all  of  its  nationality,  and  enter  into  a  realm  of 
internationalism  founded  on  free  trade,  and  a  world  federation 
founded  on  brotherhood  alone,  is  a  dream  that  cannot  be  rea- 
lized at  least  at  this  stage  of  world  development. 

Washington's  immortal  warning  against  "entangling  alli- 
ances" is  swept  aside  with  the  declaration  that  "only  special 
and  limited  alliances  entangle;  and  we  recognize  and  accept  the 
duty  of  a  new  day  in  which  we  are  permitted  to  hope  for  a 
general  alliance  which  will  avoid  entanglements  and  clear  the 
air  of  the  world  for  common  understandings  and  the  mainten- 
ance of  common  rights." 

It  seems  reasonable  to  suppose  that  if  Washington  meant 
only  "special  and  limited  alliances,"  he  would  have  said  so.  But 
he  meant  what  he  said,  and  warned  his  country  against  all  en- 
tangling alliances,  special  and  general,  limited  and  unlimited. 
Furthermore,  if  special  and  limited  alliances  entangle  some,  why 
will  not  general  and  unlimited  alliances  entangle  more?  An  evil 
made  general  does  not  become  a  virtue. 

If  to  the  one  stern  problem  of  establishing  and  securing  a 
peace  of  justice  and  righteousness  are  added  the  countless  and 
contradictory  visions  and  emotions  and  dreams  of  theorists;  if 
to  the  one  serious  question  of  securing  America's  peace  and 
safety — her  industrial  and  economic  safety — are  added  visions 
of  international  brotherhood  and  cosmic  beautitudes  through  a 
League  of  Nations,  there  will  be  no  peace. 

Washington  was  right;  and  no  sophistry,  no  clever  rhetoric 
can  sweep  aside  his  warning.  America's  dangers  are  greater 
to-day  than  ever.  Lifted  by  a  world  war  to  a  dazzling  place  of 
supremacy  and  power;  her  coffers  filled  with  gold;  her  profits 


A    LEAGUE    OF    NATIONS  199 

fabulous;  her  workers  intoxicated  with  high  wages;  her  many 
industries  turned  into  fountains  of  war  material;  her  whole 
government  centralized  and  bureaucracized  to  the  limit;  her 
responsible  leaders  clothed  with  almost  unlimited  authority; 
America  occupies  a  proud  but  perilous  place. 

The  great  danger  is  that  a  so-called  "democratic  peace"  will 
involve  America  in  socialistic,  political  and  economic  complica- 
tions calculated  to  undermine  her  institutions. 

And  what  is  a  "democratic  peace,"  pray?  Why  democratic? 
Is  this  a  democratic  war,  and  therefore  there  must  be  democratic 
peace?    Why  not  plain  "peace"? 

It  is  not  true  that  "our  soldiers  struggle  to  create  a  new  in- 
ternationalism which  shall  be  embodied  in  a  world  federation 
with  power  as  well  as  might  behind  its  decrees."  Our  soldiers 
struggle  to  protect  America  from  wrong,  injustice  and  perhaps 
political,  industrial  and  economic  slavery.  The  peace  that 
America  wants  and  demands  does  not  involve  a  League  of  Na- 
tions, or  a  World  Federation.  It  is  not  a  "democratic  peace" 
but  an  "American  peace"  that  we  want.    That  is  the  corner-stone 

of  the  structure. 

*********** 

The  American  Economist  predicts  that  the  proposed  League 
of  Nations  will  be  a  failure,  if  its  promoters  insist  upon  incor- 
porating in  it  the  doctrine  of  free-trade;  for  such  a  reactionary 
doctrine  will  not  be  acceptable  to  the  wise  and  far-seeing  leaders 
of  the  respective  nations.  For  that  very  reason  America  cannot 
afford  to  join  such  a  league. 

The  policy  of  protection  is  manifestly  liberal  and  progressive. 

If  co-operation  is  a  liberal  doctrine,  then  free-trade  is  not 
liberal,  for  the  latter  increases  competition. 

The  only  kind  of  co-operation  among  nations  that  is  practical 
and  workable  is  that  whereby  each  will  protect  itself  to  the 
fullest  degree,  and  thereby  become  strong  to  contribute  its  ut- 
most to  the  common  good  by  international  commerce  based  on 
fair  trade  and  not  free-trade;  and  fair  trade  must  take  into  con- 
sideration labor  and  other  costs  of  production. 


200  SELECTED    ARTICLES 


THE   LEAGUE   OF   NATIONS   IN   JEOPARDY1 

Manifestly  not  one  problem  but  a  whole  group  of  most  com- 
plex problems  will  unavoidably  arise  when  there  is  an  attempt 
to  construct  a  League  with  all  the  incidents  and  powers  which 
it  must  possess.  And  yet  it  is  just  such  questions — generally 
touched  by  rude  hands — that  are  the  seed-beds  of  war.  These 
difficulties  and  others  which  I  need  not  name  may  be  ultimately 
overcome.  A  great  idea  has  come  into  the  political  world,  and 
there  may  prove  sufficient  driving  power,  foresight,  imagination, 
and  tenacity  of  purpose  to  bring  it  to  fruition.  Obviously  all 
that  is  proposed  cannot  be  accomplished  at  once  or,  it  is  prob- 
able, without  many  troublesome  preliminaries,  repeated  attempts, 
and  much  effort.  There  is  no  example  of  an  organisation  equally 
comprehensive  being  constructed  without  long  preparation.  The 
Holy  Roman  Empire  preceded  the  German  Constitution  created 
by  the  Peace  of  Westphalia.  It  was  recast  by  Napoleon,  and 
again  by  the  Allies  in  1815,  and  it  did  not  take  its  present  form 
until  it  had  been  repeatedly  modified.  The  Swiss  Confederation, 
as  it  now  exists,  is  the  last  stage  in  a  development  going  back 
to  the  League  of  the  three  Communities  in  1291.  Analogies 
drawn  from  the  United  States  of  America  are  deceptive.  There 
were  attempts  at  federation  before  the  Colonies  separated  from 
the  Mother  Country.  Penn  and  Franklin  preceded  the  authors 
of  the  Declaration  of  Independence,  and  the  loose  confedera- 
tion of  1 781  led  up  to  that  which  exists  to-day.  The  elements 
of  "The  Federation  of  Europe"  do  not  yet  exist.  The  phrase 
may  be  a  useful  or  pleasing  metaphor ;  passed  off  as  a  reality,  it 
is  a  delusion.  Experience  in  constitutiort-making  seems  to  prove 
that  what  is  small  and  fragile  at  first  may  have  unlimited 
power  of  growth,  while  that  which  is  huge  at  its  birth  is  often 
a  short-lived  monstrosity.  The  more  the  programme  of  the 
League  is  studied  the  more  apparent  is  it  that  the  advance  must 
be  by  slow  stages.    "Supernationalism"  must  come  gradually. 

It  is  noticeable  that  of  late  counter-proposals  are  coming  to 
the  front.     There  are  suggestions   for  the  establishment  of  a 

1  By  John  Macdonell,  Editor  of  the  Journal  of  Comparative  Legislation 
and  member  of  the  Sub-Commission  to  South  Africa.  In  Contemporary 
Review  for  August,   19 18. 


A    LEAGUE    OF    NATIONS  201 

League  of  Neutrals;  the  Armed  Neutrality  of  1780  and  1800  is 
to  be  revived  with  new  strength.  It  is  not  improbable  that,  if 
the  League  of  Nations  were  likely  to  be  formidable,  German 
diplomatists  would  counter  it  by  declaring  themselves  in  favor 
of  such  a  scheme,  which  would  enable  them  to  bring  forward, 
under  the  name  of  "freedom  of  the  seas"  proposals  intended  to 
cripple  the  naval-power  of  England.  Dr.  Shadwell  has  thrown 
out  the  idea  of  "the  creation  of  a  new  balance  of  power  on  a 
world-wide  scale  by  the  formation  of  two  Leagues  of  Nations, 
which  might  be  called  the  Land  League  and  the  Sea  League, 
because  the  first  would  be  connected  by  land  and  the  second  by 
sea.  It  would  not  mean  real  peace,  but  it  might  prevent  minor 
wars  and  preserve  the  world  from  war  for  a  long  time." 

These  are  only  two  examples  of  schemes  which  may  be  used 
to  defeat  or  delay  the  League  of  Nations  if  its  friends  ask  too 
much.  The  question  presses,  Could  not  something  useful, 
though  necessarily  imperfect  be  done  with  little  delay?  Could 
not  the  Entente  Powers  continue  to  act  together  after  peace, 
and  by  joint  economic  pressure  carry  out  the  main  object  of  a 
League  of  Nations?  Exercised  by  the  United  States  along  with 
the  other  Allies,  it  might  against  some  countries  be  irresistible, 
The  chief  possible  forms  of  it  are  these:  (a)  Entire  stoppage  of 
intercourse;  (b)  refusal  to  admit  ships  of  the  offending  nation 
to  the  ports  of  members  of  the  League;  (c)  differential  dues 
against  the  offender;  (d)  refusal  to  supply  raw  materials;  (e) 
refusal  to  admit  emigrants;  (f)  refusal  to  allow  loans  to  be 
brought  out  or  securities  to  be  quoted.  I  admit  that  the  history 
of  nonintercourse  measures  is  not  encouraging.  They  were 
tried  twice  by  the  United  States,  and  with  indifferent  success. 
The  first  Embargo  Act  was  intended  by  its  author,  Jefferson,  to 
be  a  substitute  for  war.  It  was,  he  said,  to  save  the  nation  at 
once  from  risks  and  horrors  of  war,  and  to  set  an  example  to 
the  world  by  showing  that  nations  may  be  brought  to  justice  by 
appeals  to  their  interests  as  well  as  by  appeals  to  arms.  The 
measure,  no  doubt,  caused  much  waste,  and  roused  angry  feel- 
ings. It  was  imperfectly  carried  out.  It  proved  injurious  to 
friends  almost  as  much  as  to  enemies.  The  second  Embargo 
Act  of  1808  was  also  somewhat  of  a  failure,  according  to  Madi- 
son, "because  the  Government  did  not  sufficiently  distrust  those 
whose  successful  violence  against  the  law  had  led  to  the  general 


202  SELECTED    ARTICLES 

discontent  which  called  for  its  repeal!"  "The  states  them- 
selves," says  President  Wilson  in  his  History,  "suffered  more 
from  the  Act  than  the  nations  whose  trade  they  struck  at. 
America's  own  trade  was  ruined.  Ships  rotted  at  the  wharves — 
the  ships  which  but  yesterday  carried  the  commerce  of  the 
world.  The  quays  were  deserted.  Nothing  would  sell  any  more 
at  its  old  price.  The  Southern  planters  suffered  even  more 
keenly  than  the  New  England  merchants.  Their  tobacco,  rice, 
and  cotton  could  not  be  sold,  and  yet  their  farm  hands,  who 
were  slaves,  could  not  be  discharged  and  had  to  be  maintained. 
The  wheat  and  live  stock  of  the  Middle  States  lost  half  their 
market.  It  was  mere  bankruptcy  for  the  whole  country.  No 
vigilance  or  compulsion  could  really  enforce  the  Act,  it  is  true. 
Smuggling  took  the  place  of  legitimate  trade." 

This  experience  is  not  conclusive.  Non-intercourse  is  only 
one  of  several  practicable  forms  of  economic  coercion.  The 
interdependence  of  nations  is  much  greater  than  it  was  in  1808. 
At  all  events,  economic  pressure  is  not  attended  with  some  of 
the  dangers  inseparable  from  the  creation  of  a  large  army  placed 
at  the  disposal  of  the  majority  of  the  members  of  the  League. 
Still,  no  doubt  such  measures  would  again  fail  if  one  half  of  the 
people  were  not  in  earnest  in  the  desire  for  peace,  and  the 
other  half  were  indifferent  to  anything  but  "business  as  be- 
fore," which  was  the  state  of  things  when  Jefferson  applied 
economic  pressure  to  England  and  France.  With  such  condi- 
tions and  such  a  prevalent  temper  no  League  of  Nations  is 
likely  to  succeed. 

A  great  idea  having  entered  the  world,  let  it  not  vanish  in 
misty  sentiment,  or  fail  by  trying  too  much.  There  is  a  loss 
almost  as  deplorable  as  that  of  young  lives — the  suffering  of  en- 
thusiasm which  does  not  come  more  than  once  in  several  gen- 
erations, to  cool  down  or  be  dissipated,  the  failure  to  make  use 
of  a  large  idea  of  international  relations,  which  has  penetrated 
many  minds  never  before  open  to  it.  Much  thinking  needed 
for  the  greater  task  has  yet  to  be  done;  something  smaller  but 
not  without  value  is  possible;  and  the  seed  of  further  achieve- 
ments may  be  sown  without  waiting.  The  basis  of  a  League 
sufficient  to  do  good  work  already  exists. 

"We  have,"  to  quote  Lord  Parker's  wise  words,  "a  number 
of  nations,  great  and  small,  united  by  the  common  conception 


A    LEAGUE    OF    NATIONS  203 

of  war  as  a  danger  to  civilisation,  arid  by  determination  that  on 
no  future  occasion  will  they  (out  of  regard  for  their  private 
advantage)  stand  by  and  see  wrong  done  by  the  powerful  to 
the  weak.  My  fear  has  been,  and  is,  that  we  should  lose  the 
practical  advantage  which  we  have  gained  by  a  fruitless  en- 
deavor to  secure  theoretic  perfection.  Let  us  see  if  we  cannot 
give  greater  permanence  to  the  existing  alliance  which  might 
well  be  done  during  the  war  and  which,  if  done,  might  have  a 
potent  influence  in  settling  the  terms  of  peace  rather  than  some- 
thing which,  if  possible  at  all,  is  only  possible  after  long  nego- 
tiation and  discussion,  which  cannot  conveniently  take  place  as 
long  as  the  war  lasts." 


LORD  CECIL  IN  FAVOR    OF  A  WORLD 
LEAGUE 1 

Paris,  Jan.  8,  (Associated  Press.) — Lord  Robert  Cecil,  who 
has  arrived  here  with  the  first  section  of  the  British  peace  dele- 
gation, expressed  the  opinion  to  The  Associated  Press  today 
that  the  definite  organization  of  a  League  of  Nations  was  indis- 
pensable as  a  first  step  toward  the  conclusion  of  an  enduring 
peace  and  a  satisfactory  settlement  of  international  problems 
which  had  arisen  out  of  the  war.  He  made  it  clear  that  his 
statements  were  personal  views,  and  not  an  attempt  to  give  the 
views  of  the  British  Government. 

"In  my  opinion,  a  League  of  Nations  is  necessary  as  the 
initial  step  in  the  peace  negotiations,"  said  Lord  Robert. 

"It  is  not  only  necessary  to  insure  peace,  but  also  for  the 
proper  treatment  of  many  international  questions  which  must 
be  considered  by  the  Peace  Congress.  Joint  international  action 
in  an  organized  and  recognized  form  is  necessary  in  order  to 
relieve  millions  of  people  who  are  at  this  moment  destitute  of 
food  and  other  necessaries  of  life,  owing  to  the  unsettled  con- 
dition of  the  world;  to  regulate  permamently  many  vital  com- 
mon interests,  such  as  international  railways,  ports,  waterways, 
telegraph  and  wireless,  the  use  of  the  air,  public  health,  and  the 
protection  of  women  and  juveniles  in  industry;  and  to  discharge 

1  From  the  New  York  Times,  December  30,  1918    and  January  10,  1919. 


204  SELECTED    ARTICLES 

adequately  and  justly  the  responsibilities  of  the  great  civilized 
nations  in  such  a  great  matter  as  the  protection  and  guidance 
of  backward  peoples. 

"It  is  the  sum  of  all  these  recognized  joint  activities,  in- 
terests, and  responsibilities  that  we  call  by  the  name  of  'League 
of  Nations.'  It  is  our  business  to  give  this  league  definite  form 
here  and  now." 

Lord  Robert  made  it  clear  that  he  had  little  sympathy  with 
the  view  that  the  Peace  Congress  might  drift  into  a  prolonged 
session  which  would  ultimately  become  a  League  of  Nations 
without  being  definitely  and  positively  organized. 

"I  agree  that  this  congress  must  regard  itself  as  the  first 
regular  meeting  of  the  nations  forming  the  league,"  he  said, 
"but  I  think  it  would  be  a  dangerous  policy  to  let  the  Peace  Con- 
gress drift  along  aimlessly,  without  reaching  a  positive  organi- 
zation of  a  League  of  Nations.  Leaving  things  open  is  haz- 
ardous and  gets  one  nowhere.  This  impresses  me  as  being  a 
time  for  the  creation  of  a  body  which  will  be  effectively  or- 
ganized and  not  allowed  to  drop  into  inaction.  We  are,  more- 
over, anxious  not  to  commit  the  democratic  peoples  to  responsi- 
bilities they  are  not  prepared,  deliberately  and  consciously,  to 
accept.  It  is,  therefore,  important  to  avoid  vagueness  and  to 
define  our  policy  clearly  and  openly." 

Asked  how  far  armaments  can  be  limited  by  a  League  of 
Nations,  Lord  Robert  replied: 

"That,  in  my  opinion,  is  probably  the  most  difficult  problem 
the  Peace  Congress  will  face.  Before  national  governments  had 
effective  police  organizations  it  was  impossible  to  prevent  in- 
dividuals from  carrying  arms  to  protect  themselves  against  out- 
lawry. Laws  against  the  carrying  of  firearms  could  not  be  en- 
forced until  the  necessity  for  carrying  them  ceased  to  exist. 
So  it  is  with  the  league.  Individual  nations  will  hardly  be  will- 
ing to  disarm  until  they  are  sure  of  peace  and  justice  through 
the  operation  of  the  league.  Moreover,  how  can  any  limitation 
of  armaments  be  actually  enforced?  What  assurance  can  we 
have,  for  instance,  that  Germany  will  not  create  an  army  more 
or  less  secretly? 

"The  world  did  not  know  how  extensively  Germany  was 
preparing  for  war.  She  might  develop  another  force  under  the 
guise  of  militia.    These  are  the  difficulties  we  have  to  face,  but 


A    LEAGUE    OF    NATIONS  205 

we  must  endeavor  earnestly  to  secure  co-operation  between  the 
powers  represented  at  the  Peace  Congress  in  a  broad  policy 
of  demobilization,  which  will  correspond  to  the  yearnings  of  all 
peoples  to  be  relieved  as  soon  as  possible  from  the  burdens  they 
have  borne  for  these  last  four  and  a  half  years." 

When  asked  if  the  conditions  were  the  same  with  naval 
forces,  Lord  Robert  replied  in  the  affirmative. 

"Nations  do  not  build  navies  for  offensive  purposes,"  he  said. 
"They  build  them  for  defensive  purposes,  for  police  duties. 
Here  again  is  a  great  scope  for  co-operation  and  arrangement 
between  the  powers  represented  at  the  Peace  Congress." 

London,  Dec.  29.— Lord  Robert  Cecil  ...  in  an  interview 
by  a  correspondent  of  The  Observer,  after  affirming  the  necessity 
for  carrying  the  principle  of  a  League  of  Nations  into  effect 
dealt  with  what  he  termed  the  difficulties  connected  with  the 
details  of  such  a  plan. 

"The  moment  you  try  to  devise  the  machinery  of  a  League 
of  Nations,"  he  said,  "you  are  struck  by  the  existence  of  com- 
plete international  anarchy.  The  great  difficulty  in  providing 
an  alternative  to  war  lies  in  the  difficulty  of  providing  effective 
action  to  compel  obedience  to  any  regulations  which  may  be 
made  on  the  subject. 

"If  there  existed  any  system  of  international  co-operation 
with  formal,  or  even  informal  regulations,  this  difficulty  would 
be  easily  surmounted.  It  is  therefore  a  mistake  to  look  upon 
the  prevention  of  war  as  the  sole  function  of  nations.  The  es- 
sential thing  is  to  obtain  recognition  for  the  fact  that  the  in- 
terests of  humanity  as  a  whole  really  exist.  We  have  to  work 
in  order  that  the  nations  shall  not  forget  that  they  are  a  part 
of  one  another. 

"Any  one  who  makes  an  attempt  to  sketch  out  the  terms 
of  the  peace  settlement  will  meet  at  every  turn  problems  that 
can  only  be  solved  by  international  co-operation.  Take,  for  in- 
stance, the  tropical  countries  inhabited  by  barbarous  populations. 
In  a  world  ruled  by  international  co-operation  it  will  be  rea- 
lized that  such  countries  must  be  administered  for  the  benefit 
of  their  own  people  and  their  products  made  available  for  the 
whole  world.  If  this  is  done  it  will  matter  little  by  which  nation 
they  are  administered. 

"In  the  case  of  the  vast  countries  of  Asia  without  good  gov- 


2o6  SELECTED    ARTICLES 

ernment,  in  the  period  before  independence  can  be  exercised 
there  must  be  assistance  from  the  outside,  and  this  is  bound  to 
lead  to  international  difficulties  unless  some  power  is  intrusted 
by  the  nations  of  the  world  with  the  duty  of  providing  this  as- 
sistance. 

"International  waterways  will  be  more  important  under  any 
future  settlement  in  Europe  than  in  the  past.  More  than  one 
case  can  be  cited  besides  the  Dardanelles  and  the  Danube,  where 
possession  by  one  power  of  means  of  access  to  the  ocean  of 
another  power  has  been  a  contributory  cause  to  European  unrest. 
The  Danube  has  been  regulated  by  an  international  commission. 
With  a  League  of  Nations  there  is  no  reason  why  all  other 
similar  problems  should  not  be  similarly  disposed  of." 


THE  BACKGROUND  OF  AGGRESSION1 

In  his  book  "The  League  of  Nations,"  Mr.  Brailsford,  ap- 
proaching the  problem  in  something  of  the  spirit  of  the  sci- 
entific criminologist,  has  shown  very  clearly — more  clearly  per- 
haps than  has  been  shown  by  any  other  writer — the  danger 
which  threatens  the  whole  device  of  a  League  of  Nations  as  a 
solvent  of  international  anarchy.  On  the  side  of  the  English 
and  the  Americans  a  League  of  Nations  is  conceived  mainly 
as  a  means  of  coercing  disturbers  of  the  existing  order.  And 
they  so  conceive  it  because  the  existing  order  of  the  world, 
with  the  great  undeveloped  spaces  in  their  possession  and  no 
historical  grievances  to  redress,  is  for  them,  on  the  whole,  a 
very  satisfactory  order.  But  to  certain  other  peoples,  and 
notably  the  peoples  of  the  Central  Empires,  the  mere  crystaliza- 
tion  of  the  existing  order  may  represent  nothing  more  than 
the  confirmation  of  the  privileges  of  triumphant  force  which 
they  are  entitled  to  upset  by  a  "righteous  rebellion"  whenever 
the  opportunity  should  present  itself.  Until  we  have  taken 
more  fully  into  account  the  weight  of  this  consideration,  and 
all  that  is  implied  in  it,  we  shall  fail  to  win  the  peoples  of  the 
Central  Empires  to  real  cooperation  in  lasting  peace.  So  far, 
almost  all  the  plans  for  the  maintenance  of  peace,  of  Anglo- 

*By  Norman  Angell.  In  the  New  Republic.  September  8,  19 17. 
p.  150. 


A    LEAGUE    OF    NATIONS  207 

Saxon  origin,  are  marked  by  the  outstanding  characteristic  of 
early  methods  of  maintaining  peace  within  the  state.  The  prob- 
lem is  conceived  first  and  last  as  one  of  repression.  Having 
drawn  a  new  map,  we  are  to  see  that  respect  for  it  is  enforced 
by  preponderant  power.  Such  a  conception,  of  course,  implies 
not  only  that  the  world  as  now  organized  internationally,  or 
with  such  redistribution  of  territory  as  the  Allies  may  enforce 
at  the  peace,  with  about  the  currently  accepted  principles  of 
national  rights,  economic  and  political,  is  in  itself  just,  but  that 
it  will  remain  so  permanently. 

The  solution  is  not  a  matter  of  map  drawing,  but  of 
modifying  the  rights  which  have  heretofore  attached  to  na- 
tional sovereignty.  M.  Ribot  says  Alsace-Lorraine  "belongs" 
to  France:  Bethmann-Holweg  that  it  "belongs"  to  Germany. 
But  if  we  could  imagine  the  provinces  being  handed  over  to 
France,  and  France  exercising  the  rights  of  "proprietorship" 
hitherto  recognized  as  belonging  to  national  proprietorship,  and 
shutting  out  Germany  from  access  to  the  ore  fields  of  Lorraine 
(thus  depriving  them  of  a  necessary  element  of  their  economic 
welfare),  we  have  merely  created  conditions  morally  certain  to 
render  impossible  that  form  of  the  German  spirit  which  we  all 
admit  to  be  indispensable  to  the  destruction  of  German  mili- 
tarism and  to  the  permanent  peace  of  the  world.  On  the  other 
side,  so  long  as  Germany  regards  her  sovereignty  in  Alsace  as 
an  absolute  thing  not  to  be  limited  by  definite  obligations  to  the 
peoples  of  those  provinces  and  to  the  world,  France  will  oppose 
any  real  reconciliation  with  Germany,  and  make  our  League  of 
Nations  a  fiction.  No  mere  manipulation  of  the  map  will  save 
us  from  either  horn  of  the  dilemma. 

The  question  Mr.  Brailsford  has  set  himself  to  answer  is : 
"Under  what  political  and  economic  conditions  would  the  cre- 
ation of  a  League  of  Nations  be  a  hopeful  venture?  Whatever 
the  answer,  it  must  include  a  very  great  change  in  our  con- 
ception of  national  right  and  international  obligation.  The  in- 
dependence and  sovereignty  of  states  must  no  longer,  for  in- 
stance, include  the  right  to  block  the  necessary  access  of  other 
states  to  the  seas,  or,  in  certain  cases,  to  raw  materials  and 
markets.  The  whole  question  of  sea  law  and  belligerent  rights 
must  be  approached  from  a  new  angle.  There  must  be  some 
means  of  change,  even  of  frontiers,  without  war.    A  League  to 


208  SELECTED    ARTICLES 

Enforce  Peace  that  enforced  the  resolutions  of  the  Paris  Con- 
ference, sustained  the  right  of  one  empire  to  make  a  preserve 
of  its  dependent  undeveloped  territories,  of  some  small  state 
to  block  the  natural  economic  highway  of  a  large  one,  would 
really  be  one  group  of  nations  maintaining  by  force  special 
privileges  as  against  another  group  excluded  from  them.  It 
would  merely  be  the  old  conflict  of  Alliance  or  Balance  of  Power 
in  a  new  form. 

Yet  we  are  not  ready  for  the  very  profound  modification  of 
political  ideas  touching  national  independence  and  sovereignty 
necessary  to  make  a  League  of  Nations  workable,  and  conse- 
quently any  settlement  a  very  hopeful  one.  For  the  League  of 
Nations  must  be  an  integral  part  of  the  settlement,  if  even  on 
its  territorial  side  it  is  to  offer  hopes  of  permanence.  The 
prevailing  conception  of  the  League  to  Enforce  Peace,  even 
among  supporters,  is  that  of  a  piece  of  machinery  to  be  brought 
into  being  after  the  war,  not  at  all  a  part  of  the  problem  of  the 
war  itself  and  related  to  its  conduct  and  conclusion.  Yet,  if  it 
is  not  a  reality  to  the  extent  of  being  a  living  policy  with 
obvious  chances  of  success,  when  we  come  to  make  peace  the 
parties  to  the  settlement  will  be  concerned  mainly  to  secure  their 
own  safety  by  preponderance  and  "strategic  frontiers."  And  the 
necessary  violation  of  national  rights  involved  in  that  will  con- 
demn any  subsequent  League  to  failure.  "The  two  questions," 
says  Mr.  Brails  ford  most  truly,  "must  be  solved  as  a  whole. 
The  settlement  must  be  the  preparation  for  any  future  Society 
of  Nations.  The  stability  and  efficacy  of  a  League  of  Nations 
depend  not  merely  on  the  wise  drafting  of  its  constitution,  but 
also  on  the  solution  reached  in  the  war  settlement  of  our  prob- 
lems of  nationality;  colonial  expansion,  international  trade,  sea 
power  and  alliances." 

Any  attempt  to  settle  questions  of  nationality  without  tak- 
ing into  account  the  two  dominant  motives  which  determine  the 
policy  of  the  great  Powers  is  bound  to  fail.  Those  two  domi- 
nant motives  are  first  security,  and  secondly  vital  economic  in- 
terest. At  present  the'  great  Powers  have  no  security  but  their 
own  strength,  actual  and  potential.  That  compels  them,  not  only, 
as  already  indicated,  to  violate  the  principle  of  nationality  in 
order  to  secure  strategic  frontiers,  but  to  add  by  annexation  to 
their  own  forces  human  and  material,  and  to  weaken  those  of  a 


A    LEAGUE    OF    NATIONS  209 

possible  enemy;  while  the  economic  motive  pushes  to  the  same 
violations  in  order  that  the  possession  of  a  given  territory  may 
secure  freedom  of  economic  movements  to  the  sea,  or  access  to 
raw  materials  or  markets. 

The  danger  of  these  violations  is  not  confined  to  the  Cen- 
tral Powers.  The  same  considerations  have  stood  for  genera- 
tions, and  stand  to-day,  in  the  way  not  only  of  an  independent 
Ireland,  but  of  an  Ireland  having  the  same  autonomy  as  a 
British  self-governing  colony.  Mr.  Brailsford  notes  some  of  the 
other  Allied  cases: 

Italy,  in  order  that  she  may  have  unchallenged  naval  con- 
trol of  the  Adriatic  and  certain  ports  for  commercial  pur- 
poses, is  claiming  the  larger  part  of  Dalmatia,  where  the 
Italians  are  outnumbered  more  than  ten  to  one.  Thus,  not 
only  would  Slovenes,  Croats  and  Serbs  be  placed  under  the 
government  of  a  tiny  minority  of  aliens,  but  the  retention  of 
this  country  by  an  alien  clique  might  shut  out  from  free  access 
to  the  sea  more  than  fifty  millions  of  Germans,  Maygars  and 
Slavs. 

Take  the  case  of  an  independent  Bohemia.  One-third  of 
its  population  would  be  Maygar  or  German — a  far  more  im- 
portant minority  than  that  of  Ulster  which  has  so  long  helped 
to  make  the  settlement  of  Ireland  impossible;  and  in  the  case 
of  Bohemia  it  would  be  complicated  by  the  language  question, 
which  does  not  exist  in  Ireland.  And  whereas  Ireland  is  at 
least  open  to  the  world  by  her  ports,  Bohemia  is  wedged  in  ter- 
ritorially between  her  enemies,  whose  access  to  the  sea  her 
allies  would  be  blocking. 

Rumania  in  entering  the  war  laid  claims  to  Austrian  ter- 
ritory which  as  a  whole  would  contain  as  many  Maygars  and 
Germans  as  Rumanians.  In  the  case  of  one  district  the  Ru- 
manians would  be  a  tiny  minority. 

The  Allies,  in  order  to  weaken  Bulgaria,  proposed  to  re- 
conquer Macedonia  for  the  Serbs,  although  the  greater  part  of 
the  country  is  emphatically  and  even  fanatically  Bulgarian 
by  allegiance  and  choice,  and  although  the  Powers  previously 
allotted  the  country  to  Bulgaria,  and  although  the  second  Bal- 
kan war  was  due  to  Serbia's  refusal  to  give  effect  to  the  Euro- 
pean decision. 


210  SELECTED    ARTICLES 

And  these  are  but  samples  on  the  Allied  side  of  the  fence. 
If  the  Allies,  who  proclaim  themselves  to  be  fighting  for  na- 
tionality and  the  rights  of  all  people  to  their  own  government, 
feel  themselves  justified  on  behalf  of  security  in  violating  their 
own  principles  to  that  extent,  what  may  we  not  expect  from 
Germans  and  Austrians  who  do  not  emphasize  that  purpose?  If 
the  need  for  security  justifies  it,  the  Germans,  who  will  be  the 
weaker  and  more  unpopular  group,  will  be  able  to  invoke  it 
with  very  much  greater  force. 

We  are  still  as  nations  a  very  long  way  from  the  con- 
ception that  our  national  independence  must  be  limited  by 
our  international  obligations.  The  old  nationalist  notion  that 
there  is  something  derogatory  and  unpatriotic  in  ceding  any 
part  of  our  national  sovereignty  or  independence  has  still  an 
almost  fanatical  strength.  And  we  have  no  clear  idea  of  just 
how  far  that  sovereignty  and  independence  must  be  ceded  for 
the  purpose  of  international  organization  for  security.  It  is 
these  two  things  mainly — the  force  of  the  old  conceptions  and 
the  lack  of  any  definiteness  of  a  newer  principle — which  stand 
mainly,  and  will  stand  at  the  peace,  in  the  way  of  settlement. 

The  disturbing  fact  in  connection  therewith  is  that  these 
changes  in  conception  and  principle  cannot  be  made  by  the 
public  opinion  of  a  great  country  from  one  day  to  another. 
Coming  to  the  settlement  dominated  by  the  old  notions  of  in- 
ternational law,  independence,  sovereignty,  it  would  tend  to  com- 
pel the  rejection  of  new  and  strange  principles. 

The  only  way  to  break  down  the  strangeness  which  at  the 
crucial  moment  may  cause  new  principles  to  be  misunderstood 
and  misinterpreted  is  to  ensure  their  thorough  discussion  before- 
hand. But  upon  that  discussion  there  has  been  placed  an  almost 
official  ban.  By  some  sort  of  miracle  the  democracies  are  to 
be  fitted  to  face  entirely  new  conditions  and  apply  new  policies, 
with  no  preparation  whatever,  without  that  discussion  which  is 
the  chief  means  of  political  education.  Even  certain  peace  or- 
ganizations, whose  purpose  is  to  prepare  the  world  for  the  diffi- 
cult problems  of  internationalism,  have  laid  down  the  strange 
doctrine  that  these  matters  should  not  be  studied  by  the  mass  at 
all  just  now.  They  may  be  studied  when  the  damage  is  done, 
when,  hurried  at  some  juncture  into  a  rapid  settlement,  mankind 
may  find   itself  committed   to   decisions    which,   as    Mr.   Lloyd 


A    LEAGUE    OF    NATIONS  211 

George  says  the  other  day,  may  bind  them  for  generations,  but 
which  may  well  defeat  the  objects  for  which  the  war  is  being 
fought. 

A  LEAGUE  OF  NATIONS1 

It  should  be  clearly  understood  that  any  such  plan  of  inter- 
national cooperation  as  this  league  of  nations,  would  involve 
the  giving  up  by  each  nation  included  in  the  league  of  the  ab- 
solute right  of  its  government  to  deal  finally  and  without  appeal 
except  to  war,  with  questions  arising  out  of  treaties  or  relations 
between  itself  and  some  other  government.  Little  serious  prog- 
ress can  be  made  in  getting  rid  of  war  and  in  better  organizing 
the  world  until  the  free  peoples  are  ready  to  have  their  several 
governments  take  this  long  step  forward. 

It  is  important  that  this  league  of  nations  should  begin  by 
not  attempting  too  much.  The  line  of  least  resistance,  and  there- 
fore of  greatest  possible  progress,  is  to  lay  stress  upon  the  power 
and  authority  of  a  single  international  judicial  authority,  and  to 
accustom  the  public  opinion  of  the  world  to  seek  and  to  defer 
to  the  findings  of  such  authority.  All  international  agreements 
between  members  of  the  league  would  in  effect  be  acts  of  inter- 
national legislation,  and  in  due  time  some  formal  international 
legislative  body  might  be  brought  into  existence.  It  would  be 
much  better,  however,  to  give  this  body  a  chance  to  grow  up 
naturally,  rather  than  to  attempt  to  bring  it  into  existence  as 
part  of  a  logical  and  systematically  worked-out  plan. 

Such  a  league  of  nations  as  is  here  outlined  will  rest  upon  a 
moral  foundation.  Its  aim  will  be  to  advance  the  good  order, 
the  satisfaction  and  the  happiness  of  the  world.  It  will  not  be, 
and  should  not  be,  merely  a  league  to  enforce  peace.  A  league 
of  that  name  might  well  rest  solely  upon  force  and  entirely  over- 
look both  law  and  equity.  Doubtless  Germany  and  Austria- 
Hungary  now  feel  that  they  are  joint  and  several  members  of  a 
highly  meritorious  league  to  enforce  peace — peace  upon  their 
own  terms  and  as  they  conceive  it.  A  league  of  nations  that 
aims  to  declare  and  to  enforce  principles  of  international  law 
and  justice,  will  of  necessity  be  a  league  to  establish  peace,  be- 

1  By  Nicholas  Murray  Butler,  President  of  Columbia  University.  In 
the  London  Daily  Chronicle,  July  27,  19 18. 


212  SELECTED    ARTICLES 

cause  it  will  be  a  league  to   establish  those   foundations   upon 
which  alone  permanent  peace  can  rest. 


WHY   PEACE  MUST  BE   ENFORCED 1 

Three  main  sanctions  have  been  suggested  for  the  interna- 
tional law  which  a  League  of  Peace  will  formulate  and  maintain. 
I  leave  out  of  account  diplomatic  pressure,  because  diplomatic 
pressure  has  never  been  accounted  sufficient  when  a  real  crisis 
arises.  The  three  are  : 
I.  Public  opinion. 
II.     Economic  pressure. 

III.    Force. 

Let  us  take  them  up  in  order. 

First,  Public  opinion.  Of  course,  no  sanction  can  have  the 
effect  desired  unless  it  is  strong  enough  to  deter  those  who  are 
tempted  to  disregard  it.  Can  public  opinion  do  this?  Can  it  of 
itself  compel  obedience  to  international  law?  While  it  is  an 
axiom  of  political  science  that  no  law  can  be  enforced  contrary 
to  public  opinion,  the  converse  is,  of  course,  not  true.  Public 
opinion  can  no  more  prevent  a  great  nation  violating  the  canons 
of  international  law,  as  has  amply  been  demonstrated  in  the 
present  war,  than  can  the  public  opinion  within  a  nation  appre- 
hend a  criminal  or  put  down  a  riot.  Public  opinion  must  sus- 
tain international  law  and  approve  its  enforcement,  but  public 
opinion  as  a  substitute  for  force  is  a  pure  chimera. 

Second,  Economic  pressure.  Will  non-intercourse  or  eco- 
nomic pressure  be  sufficient  to  enforce  the  rules  of  the  league? 
This  phase  of  the  question  has  been  little  discussed  until  very 
recently. 

The  argument  runs  that  if  a  nation  were  absolutely  cut  off 
from  all  intercourse  with  the  rest  of  the  world  it  would  suffer 
so  severely  that  it  would  have  to  give  in.  If  all  credit,  all  loans, 
all  trade  were  stopped,  if  even  letters  and  telegrams  were  pro- 
hibited, no  nation  could  endure  such  a  strangling  isolation  and 
would  come  to  terms. 

Mr.  Herbert  S.  Houston,  in  his  address  before  the  Interna- 

1  By  Hamilton  Holt.     Independent,     p.  212.     February   5.    1Q17. 


A    LEAGUE    OF    NATIONS  213 

tional  Peace  Conference  at  the  Panama-Pacific  Exposition  in 
San  Francisco  last  October,  expresses  this  view  most  succinctly 
when  he  says : 

The  most  effective  factors  in  world-wide  economic  pressure,  such  as 
would  be  required  to  compel  nations  to  take  justiciable  issues  to  a  World 
Court  for  decision  are  a  group  of  international  forces.  Today  money  is 
international  because  in  all  civilized  countries  it  has  gold  as  the  common 
basis.  Credit  based  on  gold  is  international.  Commerce  based  on  money 
and  on  credit  is  international.  Then  the  amazing  network  of  agencies 
by  which  money  and  credit  and  commerce  are  employed  in  the  world  are 
also  international.  Take  the  stock  exchanges,  the  cables,  the  wireless,  the 
international  postal  service  and  the  wonderful  modern  facilities  for  com- 
munication and  intercommunication,  all  these  are  international  forces.  They 
are  common  to  all  nations.  In  the  truest  sense  they  are  independent 
of  race,  of  language,  of  religion,  of  culture,  of  government,  and  of  every 
other  human  limitation.  That  is  one  of  their  chief  merits  in  making 
them  the  most  effective  possible  power  used  in  the  form  of  economic  pres- 
sure to  put  behind  a  World  Court. 

Now  while  economic  embargoes  would  undoubtedly  exert  a 
very  great  pressure  in  international  affairs,  and  would  doubt- 
less, in  many  instances,  be  sufficient  to  bring  about  a  recourse  to 
courts  and  councils  of  conciliation,  there  are  several  reasons  to 
think  it  would  not  always  avail.  Two  of  the  most  important  are 
as  follows : 

Economic  pressure  can  never  be  as  great  as  physical  pressure, 
both  by  the  very  nature  of  the  case,  and  because,  as  President 
Lowell  of  Harvard  University  has  recently  pointed  out,  "the  re- 
sistance of  the  interests  effected  will  be  at  least  as  great  against 
an  economic  boycott  as  against  war,  and  they  will  be  constantly 
striving  to-  break  it  down,  whereas,  war  once  declared  silences 
opposition — a  fact  which  any  nation  that  thought  of  defying  a 
League  of  Peace  would  not  fail  to  note." 

The  proposal  to  resort  to  non-intercourse  will  have  to  meet 
this  practical  difficulty.  When  such  a  measure  is  to  be  employed 
how  can  the  coercing  powers  equitably  apportion  the  pressure 
among  themselves?  In  undertaking  to  employ  military  force 
this  may  not  be  quite  so  difficult,  but  when  economic  pressure  is 
to  be  employed,  it  is  conceivable  that  a  single  nation  may  have 
to  bear  practically  the  entire  cost  of  the  undertaking.  In  fact 
every  nation  which  is  party  to  the  league,  as  has  been  said  by 
the  minority  report  of  the  "Committee  of  the  American  Cham- 
bers of  Commerce"  would  have  to  be  prepared  to  risk,  or  sacri- 
fice for  the  time  its  entire  trade  with  an  offending  nation,  even 
tho  other  members  of  the  league  suffered  no  corresponding  loss. 


214  SELECTED    ARTICLES 

Unless  the  nations  were  willing  to  devise  some  plan  by  which 
the  nation  that  suffered  the  most  from  the  loss  of  trade  would 
be  compensated  by  the  others  this  objection  might  be  almost 
insuperable. 

Third,  Force.  If  public  opinion  and  economic  pressure  will 
not  always  and  invariably  suffice  to  compel  a  recourse  to  the 
peaceful  adjustment  of  international  disputes,  we  must  evidently 
fall  back  on  force  as  the  ultimate  sanction.  For,  as  Woolf  says 
in  The  New  Statesman,  July  10,  1915,  "The  maintenance  of  over- 
whelming power  in  the  great  nations  and  the  continuance  of 
their  agreement"  are  the  only  guarantee  of  the  future  peace  of 
the  world. 

The  nations  are  now  living  in  a  world  in  which  there  are 
laws  to  prevent  war  but  no  force  to  compel  a  resort  to  them.  It 
would  be  an  exact  parallel  if  within  the  state  were  elabor- 
ate laws  governing  the  conduct  of  persons  engaged  in  riots, 
murder  and  violence  but  none  to  prevent  riot,  murder  and  vio- 
lence and  no  police  to  enforce  them.  This  aspect  of  the  case  has 
recently  been  discussed  by  Elihu  Root,  who  says : 

Many  states  have  grown  so  great  that  there  is  no  power  capable  of 
imposing  punishment  upon  them  except  the  power  of  collective  civilization 
outside  the  state  .  .  .  and  the  only  possibility  of  establishing  real  restraint 
by  law  seems  to  remain  to  give  effect  to  the  undoubted  will  of  the  vast 
majority  of  mankind. 

In  other  words,  Mr.  Root  proposes  to  establish  an  interna- 
tional criminal  law. 

If,  then,  we  must  have  force  as  the  ultimate  sanction  to 
bring  the  nations  before  the  courts  and  councils,  are  there  not 
times  when  economic  pressure  will  do  just  as  well  as  force  and 
the  nations  will  not  have  to  resort  to  the  bloody  arbitrament  of 
war?  Or,  if  force  cannot  entirely  be  dispensed  with,  why  might 
not  some  members  of  the  league  be  permitted  to  use  economic 
force  while  the  other  fight?  Let  us  take  up  the  latter  question 
first. 

There  can  be  no  doubt  that  if  a  nation  knows  that  certainly, 
instantly  and  concertedly  all  the  other  nations  will  make  war 
against  it  the  minute  it  begins  hostilities,  such  a  nation  will  not 
break  the  peace  as  long  as  the  force  of  the  league  is  unques- 
tionably superior  to  its  own  force.  In  other  words,  the  cer- 
tainty that  an  overwhelming  force  will  be  used  means  that  prac- 


A    LEAGUE    OF    NATIONS  215 

tically  it  never  will  be  used.  The  only  conceivable  contingency 
in  which  the  force  of  the  league  might  not  be  effective  would 
be  in  the  improbably  but  not  impossibly  rare  case  when  the  mem- 
bers of  the  league  divide  into  two  nearly  equal  groups,  as  the 
American  states  did  in  the  Civil  War.  Such  a  contingency,  tho 
remote,  can,  of  course,  never  be  absolutely  guarded  against. 

But  the  real  danger  of  trying  to  separate  economic  from  mil- 
itary pressure  and  exerting  it  independently  lies  in  this  fact:  If 
the  choice  is  open  as  to  which  course  may  be  pursued,  delay 
and  parleying  ensue  after  the  danger  has  arisen,  and  that  in  turn 
would  give  the  offending  nation  opportunity  to  befog  the  issue 
with  intrigue,  with  the  possibility  that  either  nothing  at  all  would 
be  done,  and  the  guilty  nation  escape  punishment,  or  else  the 
intrigue  would  continue  until  war  would  become  inevitable.  On 
the  other  hand,  if  the  offending  nation  knew  that  no  parleying 
and  intrigue  could  prevent  instant  military  intervention  it  would 
behave  itself  from  the  beginning  and  neither  injustice  nor  war 
would  be  nearly  so  likely  to  ensue. 

Several  of  the  various  American  peace  organizations,  as  well 
as  the.  American  Chamber  of  Commerce,  which  represent  the 
business  life  of  the  United  States,  have  exprest  a  belief  that 
there  is  a  stage  in  the  proceedings  before  hostilities  are  actually 
reached  where  economic  pressure  might  advantageously  be  ap- 
plied. There  are  two  stages,  it  is  claimed,  in  which  joint  inter- 
vention of  the  league  might  take  place,  to  put  pressure  upon  a 
recalcitrant  nation.  The  first  stage  is  that  in  which  war  is  being 
threatened  by  one  power  against  a  second  when  an  ultimatum 
might  be  presented  and  the  mobilization  of  troops  begun.  This 
would  be  the  stage  for  economic  pressure.  But  once  actual 
hostilities  or  invasion  had  ensued  the  second  state  would  be 
reached  and  military  pressure  automatically  applied.  The  League 
to  Enforce  Peace  has  been  willing  to  accept  an  amendment 
granting  the  value  of  economic  pressure  before  military  pres- 
sure, provided  military  pressure  follows  the  instant  hostilities 
begin.  But  the  probability  is  that  there  would  not  be  a  'suffi- 
ciently extended  time  between  the  ultimatum  and  actual  hos- 
tilities in  modern  warfare  to  bring  economic  pressure  into  action 
or  to  permit  pressure  to  exert  any  deterrent  effect  on  the  na- 
tion bent  on  war.  In  other  words,  economic  pressure  is  of  more 
theoretical  than  practical  value,  since  modern  wars  begin  so 
suddenly. 


216  SELECTED    ARTICLES 

In  taking  up  the  question  of  whether  all  members  of  the 
league  must  invariably  furnish  their  quota  of  force  against  the 
recalcitrant  nation,  there  can  be  no  doubt  that  if  it  is  necessary 
it  must  be  done.  But  as  a  practical  proposition,  if  all  nations 
exert  economic  pressure  it  may  be  sufficient  for  certain  nations 
of  the  league  alone  to  furnish  the  military  force. 

When  the  Hague  Court  announced  its  decision  in  the  Ven- 
ezuela case  in  1904  it  called  upon  the  United  States  to  see  that 
its  decree  was  carried  out.  When  the  allied  nations  lifted  the 
siege  of  Peking,  only  those  sent  troops  who  happened  to  have 
them  in  Asia.  .  .  .  The  United  States  alone  is  amply  able  to 
protect  all  foreign  interests  in  Mexico  with  her  own  forces. 
The  question  of  how  and  in  what  measure  the  force  of  the 
league  shall  be  used  is,  after  all,  a  practical  one  to  be  decided  at 
the  time.  The  only  important  thing  is  to  have  each  nation  pre- 
pared to  use  its  force  to  the  utmost  if  necessary. 


INTERNATIONAL  POLICE  TO  ENFORCE 
WORLD    PEACE1 

The  purpose  of  the  League  is  to  organize  the  world's 
strength  into  an  international  police  to  enforce  a  procedure 
with  respect  to  issues  likely  to  lead  to  war  which  will  prevent 
all  wars  but  those  which  nothing  can  prevent. 

The  procedure  to  be  enforced  is  the  submission  of  ques- 
tions of  a  legal  nature,  the  decision  of  which  must  be  guided 
by  rules  of  law,  to  an  international  court  for  its  judgment,  and 
"the  submission  of  all  other  questions  to  an  impartial  commis- 
sion to  hear  and  decide,  its  decision  to  take  the  form  of  a 
recommendations  of  compromise  present  a  fetill  more  serious 
question  by  the  court  will  be  legally  and  in  honor  binding  on 
the  parties.  That  is  implied  in  a  submission  to  a  court.  The 
recommendation  of  compromise,  however,  is  not  in  law  or  in 
honor  binding  unless  the  parties  accept  it.  The  League  does 
not  propose  to  enforce  either.  Some  time  if  the  League  comes 
into   successful   operation   it   may  be   thought   well   to   enforce 

1  By  William  Howard  Taft,  President  of  the  League  to  Enforce  Peace. 
From  an  article  in  "The  Nation's  Business,"  published  by  the  United  States 
Chamber  of  Commerce. 


A    LEAGUE    OF    NATIONS  217 

judgment  just  as  domestic  judgments  are  enforced.  The  diffi- 
culty, however,  that  even  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United 
States  has  in  enforcing  its  judgments  against  sovereign  states 
may  give  pause  in  taking  that  step.  The  enforcement  and 
recommendations  of  compromise  present  a  still  more  serious 
problem.  Nations  may  well  hesitate  to  submit  questions  of 
policy  and  vital  interests  to  the  unlimited  discretion  of  arbitra- 
tors, unguided  by  settled  principles  of  law,  for  their  final  deci- 
sion, and  its  enforcement  by  the  world  police. 

Practically  if  we  enforce  the  procedure  of  the  League,  we 
shall  take  a  step  which  will  rid  us  of  most  wars.  If  every 
issue  between  nations  is  forced  to  arbitration  and  judgment 
or  recommendation  of  compromise,  it  will  compel  delibera- 
tion by  those  who  think  of  war,  it  will  enable  the  quarreling 
peoples  to  understand  what  it  is  they  are  to  fight  about,  and 
what  the  attitude  of  their  opponents  is.  The  decision  of  im- 
partial tribunals  can  not  but  have  great  influence,  and  will 
form  the  public  opinion  of  the  world.  The  period  of  delay 
itself  will  abate  heat  and  induce  calmer  views.  It  is  the  suc- 
cessful practice  of  arbitration  that  leads  to  its  adoption.     .  .  . 

To  make  arbitration  useful,  the  state  of  mind  of  nations 
in  regard  to  arbitration  should  be  that  of  the  strict  and  ortho- 
dox Puritans,  that  one  must  be .  willing  to  be  damned  if  he 
would  be  saved.  Practice  in  arbitrations  produces  this  state 
of  mind  and  this  confidence  in  the  method,  the  League  en- 
forces this  practice,  the  educational  effect  of  which  upon  na- 
tions in  showing  the  possibility  of  such  peaceful  settlement  of 
disputes  will  be  invaluable.  The  procedure  will  become  as  of 
course  and  the  habit  of  such  settlement  will  be  formed. 

But  the  Pacifist  asks  why  use  force  at  all.  Why  is  not 
a  general  agreement  by  all  the  world  to  arbitrate  enough?  The 
belligerent  nations  will  not  regard  mere  promises  an  adequate 
guaranty.  They  will  insist  on  adding  as  a  sanction  the  fear 
of  international  police.  Every  domestic  community,  however 
law-abiding  its  citizens,  provides  a  police  force  to  suppress  dis- 
turbers of  the  peace.  Many  people  would  never  create  dis- 
turbances, but  others  would  do  so,  unless  they  knew  that  police 
representing  the  full  power  of  all  for  the  common  good  would 
restrain  them. 

The  potential  existence  of  a  police  force  of  such  over- 
whelming nature  as  the  united  armies  and  navies  of  the  world 


218  SELECTED    ARTICLES 

would  furnish,  and  the  threat  of  destructive  isolation  by  a 
withdrawal  of  all  commerce  with  all  neighbors,  would,  except 
in  rare  cases,  accomplish  the  purpose  of  this  organization  of 
world  force  without  its  use. 

A  second  reason  why  the  agreement  to  contribute  to  an 
international  police  force  is  a  great  improvement  over  a  mere 
general  treaty  to  arbitrate  all  differences  between  all  nations 
is  that  where  no  force  is  behind  a  treaty  as  a  sanction,  no  one 
is  especially  interested  in  the  performance  of  the  treaty  ex- 
cept the  two  nations  who  have  a  difference. 

If  one  of  the  two  nations  fails  or  refuses  to  arbitrate  as 
agreed,  the  other  nations,  though  signatories  to  the  treaty, 
look  on  and  are  sorry,  but  they  have  no  responsibility  or  mo- 
tive which  leads  them  to  exert  pressure  upon  the  recalcitrant 
nation.  In  our  League,  however,  every  member  in  order  to 
avoid  contributing  to  the  police,  is  deeply  interested  to  secure 
peaceful  compliance  with  the  procedure.  This  motive  will 
arouse  a  world  public  opinion,  having  an  ever  operating  and 
selfishly  active  influence.  The  diplomatic  pressure  that  all  those 
not  in  the  quarrel  will  thus  bring  to  bear  on  those  who  are,  will 
be  most  effective  to  prevent  hostilities.     .  .  . 

The  Monroe  Doctrine  does  not  grow  out  of  rules  of  in- 
ternational law.  It  is  a  policy  to  be  pursued  in  our  own  in- 
terest and  to  be  maintained  by  us  by  force  if  questioned.  No 
nation  can  deny  our  legal  right  to  exclude  whom  we  will  from 
our  shores,  or  to  deny  to  whom  we  will  our  citizenship  un- 
less we  have  contracted  these  rights  away.  If  it  is  said  that 
such  questions  might  nevertheless  be  held  by  the  International 
Court  to  be  of  a  legal  nature,  they  are  so  clearly  not  in  that 
category  that  a  specific  provision  defining  them  as  non-jus- 
ticiable issues  could,  doubtless  with  the  consent  of  all  the 
powers,  be  inserted  in  the  Treaty.  If  therefore  we  do  not 
accept  the  recommendation  of  compromise,  on  the  Monroe 
Doctrine  or  our  Immigration  policy,  honor  will  not  require  us 
to  acquiesce  in  it.  Thus  we  shall  be  no  worse  off  as  to  such 
issues  than  if  we  had  not  entered  the  League.  Neither  the  delay 
nor  the  hearing  would  prejudice  us  because  we  are  now  under 
treaty  obligation  with  most  of  the  world  not  to  begin  hostilities 
for  a  year  after  the  issue  arises,  and  to  have' an  investigation  by 
an  impartial  tribunal  meantime. 


A    LEAGUE    OF    NATIONS  219 

The  League  instead  of  being  an  abandonment  of  the  Mon- 
roe Doctrine  will  aid  in  its  maintenance  because  violations 
of  the  Monroe  Doctrine  beginning  with  threatened  hostilities 
by  a  European  or  Asiatic  power  against  one  of  the  American 
Republics  would  be  halted  by  the  League  with  an  examination 
of  the  ground  of  quarrel  by  a  court  or  commission. 

Then  it  is  said  that  the  League  is  unconstitutional  in  that 
it  will  turn  over  to  a  council  of  representatives  of  all  the 
world  power  to  plunge  us  into  war,  whereas  the  Constitution 
vests  Congress  alone  with  power  to  declare.  This  is  a  mis- 
conception. We  enter  into  the  treaty  through  the  treaty-mak- 
ing power  of  the  President  and  the  Senate.  The  treaty  binds 
us  in  a  certain  event  to  contribute  our  share  to  a  world  police 
force  and  thus  help  to  restrain  or  suppress  the  beginning  of 
war  in  violation  of  the  terms  of  the  League.  Our  nation  must 
perform  this  obligation  in  the  way  enjoined  by  the  Constitution. 
That  is,  Congress  must  act  by  proper  declaration,  furnish  the 
force  and  authorize  the  Executive  to  act.  The  course  is  ex- 
actly the  same  in  a  national  promise  to  pay  money  to  another 
nation.  The  treaty-making  power  makes  the  agreement,  and 
when  the  time  for  performance  arrives  Congress  must  make 
the  appropriation.  In  either  case  Congress  may  refuse  to  do 
so  and  thus  break  the  obligation  which  honorably  binds  the 
Government,  but  the  original  agreement  is  not  therefore  un- 
constitutional. 

If  Congress  recognizes  the  binding  force  of  the  obligations, 
Congress  must  still  determine  and  is  the  only  power  which 
can  determine  whether  the  event  has  occurred  which  requires 
the  United  States  to  furnish  its  quota  of  police;  Therefore,  the 
League  is  neither  unconstitutional  nor  does  it  put  in  the  hands 
of  a  council  of  foreign  nations  power  to  plunge  us  into  hostilities 
unless  Congress  decides  that  under  the  League  the  time  has 
arrived  for  us  to  take  action. 


220  SELECTED    ARTICLES 

OPPOSITION    TO     FORCE,    FOR    AN    INTER- 
NATIONAL   PEACE    LEAGUE1 

All  international  associations  or  agreements  for  the  pro- 
motion of  the  world's  peace  have  hitherto  been  voluntary;  that 
is,  there  has  been  no  sanction  behind  the  decisions  of  the  in- 
ternational tribunals  or  behind   the  international  agreements. 

If  any  signatory  of  the  agreements  or  treaties,  or  any  party 
to  arbitration,  declined  to  be  bound  by  a  decision  of  the  tribu- 
nal which  had  been  created  or  by  the  provisions  of  an  interna- 
tional convention,  there  was  no  means  of  compelling  such 
signatory  to  abide  by  them,  a  fact  which  has  been  most  dismally 
demonstrated  since  this  war  began. 

The  chief  practical  result  of  international  associations  for 
the  promotion  of  peace  has  taken  the  form  of  arrangements 
for  the  arbitration  of  disputed  questions.  The  subjects  of 
these  arbitrations  have  been  limited  and  the  submission  of  the 
nations  to  the  international  tribunals  and  their  decisions  has 
been  purely  voluntary.  Much  gOod  has  been  obtained  by  volun- 
tary arbitration.  Many  minor  questions  which  a  hundred  years 
ago  led  to  reprisals,  and  sometimes  to  war,  have  been  removed 
from  the  region  of  armed  •  hostilities  and  brought  within  the 
range  of  peaceable  settlement.  Voluntary  arbitrations,  which 
have  gone  on  in  steadily  increasing  number  and  in  the  promotion 
of  which  the  United  States  has  played  a  large,  creditable,  and 
influential  part,  have  now  reached,  as  they  were  certain  to  do, 
their  natural  limits ;  that  is,  they  have  been  made  to  cover  in 
practice  all  the  questions  which  can  at  present  be  covered  by 
voluntary  arbitration.  The  efforts  which  have  been  made  to 
carry  voluntary  arbitration  beyond  its  proper  sphere — like  our 
recent  treaties  involving  a  year's  delay  and  attempting  to  deal 
with  the  vital  interests  of  nations — are  useless  but  by  no  means 
harmless.  They  are  distinctly  mischievous,  because  in  time  of 
stress  and  peril  no  nation  would  regard  them,  and  a  treaty  which 
can  not  or  will  not  be  scrupulously  fulfilled,  is  infinitely  worse 
than  no  treaty  at  all.  No  greater  harm  can  be  done  to  the 
cause  of  peace  between  the  nations  than  to  make  treaties  which 

1  By  Henry  Cabot  Lodge,  Head  of  the  Senate  Committee  on  Foreign 
Relations.    From  a  speech  delivered  in  the  Senate,  February  i,  19 17. 


A    LEAGUE    OF    NATIONS  221 

will  not  be  under  all  conditions  scrupulously  observed.  The  dis- 
regard of  treaties  is  a  most  prolific  cause  of  war.  Nothing  has 
done  more  to  envenom  feeling  in  the  present  war  or  to  prolong 
it  than  the  disregard  of  the  treaty  guaranteeing  the  neutrality 
of  Belgium  and  the  further  disregard  of  the  Hague  conven- 
tions, for  this  has  implanted  in  the  minds  of  men  the  belief  that 
treaties  bring  no  settlement  and  are  not  worth  the  paper  upon 
which  they  are  written;  that  the  only  security  of  peace  is  to 
be  found  in  the  destruction  of  the  enemy  and  in  placing  an 
opponent  in  a  physical  condition  where  he  is  unable  to  renew 
war,  because  there  is  no  assurance  of  safety  in  a  duly  ratified 
treaty. 

If,  then,  voluntary  arbitration  and  voluntary  agreements, 
by  convention  or  otherwise,  without  any  sanction,  have  reached 
their  limits,  what  is  the  next  step?  There  is  only  one  possible 
advance,  and  that  is  to  put  a  sanction  behind  the  decision  of 
an  international  tribunal  or  behind  an  agreement  of  the  nations; 
in  other  words,  to  create  a  power  to  enforce  the  decree  of  the 
international  courts  or  the  provisions  of  the  international  agree- 
ments.    There  is  no  other  solution. 

I  have  given  a  great  deal  of  thought  to  this  question  and 
I  admit  that  at  first  it  seemed  to  me  that  it  might  be  possible 
to  put  force  behind  the  world  peace.  The  peace  and  order  of 
towns  and  cities,  of  states  and  nations,  are  all  maintained  by 
force.  The  force  may  not  be  displayed — usually  there  is  no 
necessity  for  doing  so — but  order  exists  in  our  towns,  in  our 
cities,  in  our  states,  and  in  our  Nation,  and  the  decrees  of  our 
courts  are  enforced  solely  because  of  the  existence  of  over- 
whelming force  behind  them.  It  is  known  that  behind  the 
decrees  of  the  courts  of  the  United  States  there  is  an  irre- 
sistible force.  If  the  peace  of  the  world  is  to  be  maintained  as 
the  peace  of  a  city  or  the  internal  peace  of  a  nation  is  main- 
tained, it  must  be  maintained  in  the  same  way — by  force.  To 
make  an  agreement  among  the  nations  for  the  maintenance  of 
peace  and  leave  it  to  each  nation  to  decide  whether  its  force 
should  be  used  in  a  given  case  to  prevent  war  between  two  or 
more  other  nations  of  the  world,  does  not  advance  us  at  all;  we 
are  still  under  the  voluntary  system.  There  is  no  escape  from  the 
conclusion  that  if  we  are  to  go  beyond  purely  voluntary  arbitra- 
tion   and     purely    voluntary    agreements,     actual    international 


222  SELECTED    ARTICLES 

force  must  be  placed  behind  the  decisions  or  the  agreements. 
There  is  no  halfway  house  to  stop  at.  The  system  must  be 
either  voluntary  or  there  must  be  force  behind  the  agreement 
or  the  decision.  It  makes  no  difference  whether  that  force  is 
expressed  by  armies  and  navies,  or  by  economic  coercion,  as 
suggested  by  Sir  Frederick  Pollock.  It  is  always  force,  and  it  is 
of  little  consequence  whether  the  recalcitrant  nation  is  brought 
to  obedience  by  armed  men  and  all  the  circumstance  of  war,  or 
by  commercial  ruin,  popular  suffering  and,  perhaps,  starvation, 
inflicted  by  the  major  force  of  mankind  under  the  direction  of 
the  League  for  Peace.    It  is  ever  and  always  force.     .  .  . 

I  know  well  the  question  which  can  be  put  to  me,  and 
probably  will  be  put  to  me  here  and  elsewhere:  "Are  you, 
then,  unwilling  to  use  the  power  and  influence  of  the  United 
States  for  the  promotion  of  the  permament  peace  of  the 
world?"  Not  at  all;  there  is  nothing  that  I  have  so  much  at 
heart.  But  I  do  not,  in  my  eagerness  to  promote  the  perma- 
nent peace  of  the  world,  desire  to  involve  this  country  in  a 
scheme  which  may  create  a  situation  worse  than  that  which 
now  exists.  Sometimes  it  is  better  to  "bear  those  ills  which 
we  have  than  fly  to  others  that  we  know  not  of."  There 
are  measures  which  will  promote  peace  and  which  are  wholly 
practicable.  The  first  and  most  important  is  the  protection  of 
our  own  peace  against  foreign  attack.  That  can  only  be  done 
by  national  defense,  and  we  have  no  adequate  national  defense 
now.  We  have  no  means  of  repelling  the  invasion  of  a  great 
power  as  it  must  be  repelled,  and  such  weakness,  combined 
with  great  wealth,  constitutes  an  invitation  and  a  temptation  to 
war.  Against  that  danger  we  should  insure  ourselves  by  ade- 
quate national  defenses,  and  by  reducing  the  danger  of  war 
being  forced  upon  us  we  to  that  extent  promote  the  peace  of 
mankind  and  we  likewise  put  ourselves  in  a  position  where  our 
influence  and  power  in  the  world  for  the  maintenance  of  general 
peace  would  be  enormously  increased. 

The  next  thing  to  which  we  ought  to  address  ourselves  on 
the  conclusion  of  this  war  should  be  the  rehabilitation  and  re- 
establishment  of  international  law.  International  law  represents 
a  great  mass  of  customs  and  usages  which  have  become  law 
and  which  have  been  observed,  cited,  and  referred  to  by  the 
nations.     International   law  has   had   an   ever-increasing  power 


A    LEAGUE    OF    NATIONS  223 

on  the  conduct  of  nations  toward  each  other.  The  fact  that  it 
has  been  violated  and  disregarded  in  many  instances  during  the 
present  conflict  is  no  reason  for  adopting  the  counsel  of  despair 
and  saying  that  it  is  of  no  value  and  must  be  abandoned.  It 
is  of  enormous  value  and  should  be  restored  and  upbuilt  on 
the  conclusion  of  this  war  with  all  the  energy  and  influence 
which  we  can  bring  to  bear.  We  should  try  also,  within  the 
necessary  and  natural  limits,  to  extend  the  use  of  voluntary 
arbitration,  so  far  as  possible,  and  create,  as  we  can  well  do,  a 
powerful  public  opinion  behind  the  system.  We  can  also  do 
much  in  urging  a  general  reduction  of  armaments  by  all  nations. 


GERMANY  AND  A  LEAGUE  OF  NATIONS  » 

In  view  of  the  position  taken  later  on  in  this  article  it  is 
necessary  to  remind  the  reader  that  from  the  beginning  of 
the  great  war  the  writer  urged  America's  entry  into  it  to  de- 
feat Prussianism.  A  single  extract  from  a  statement  he  was 
privileged  to  make  to  The  New  York  Tribune  a  few  weeks 
after  the  war  began,  namely,  September  19,  1914,  will  serve  to 
establish  this: 

The  cruel  way  in  which  devoted  little  Belgium  is  being  trampled  to 
death  simply  because  it  lay  in  the  path  of  a  war-mad  Government  makes 
one's  blood  boil.  The  Germans,  dominated  by  a  ruthless  military  class, 
are  moving  back  the  practices  of  the  world.  ...  I  am  not  in  favor  of 
the  United  States  embroiling  itself  unnecessarily  in  European  controversies, 
but  a  state  of  affairs  exists  in  Europe  which,  if  the  love  of  decency  in 
international  conduct  and  of  fair  play  and  of  common  justice  is  in  our 
hearts,  must  lead  us  openly  to  espouse  the  cause  of  England  and  her 
allies.  .  .  .  Germany  is  not  and  has  not  for  years  been  amenable  to  reason. 
Only  force  will  avail.  She  must  be  beaten  to  her  knees  to  stem  the  flow 
of  barbarism,  to  free  the  German  masses  from  the  grip  of  the  bureaucracy 
and  ruthless  military  class,  and  to  arrest  militarism  itself.  .  .  .  The  cause 
of  militarism  will  continue  to  spread  over  the  world  until  the  bureaucracy 
and  military  class  of  Germany  are  overthrown. 

Holding  these  views  and  endeavoring,  in  his  feeble  way, 
by  pen  and  speech  to  advance  them  to  the  very  end  of  the 
struggle,  the  writer  feels  the  more  at  liberty  to  make  an 
earnest  plea  now  for  the  generous  admission  of  the  new  Ger- 
many to  full  membership  in  the  League  of  Nations.  A  prin- 
cipal reason  for  this  position  is  that  all  the  leading  plans  for 

1  By  Theodore  Marburg,  formerly  United  States  Minister  to  Belgium. 
In  New  York  Times,  November  24,   19 18. 


224  SELECTED    ARTICLES 

a  league  in  America  and  abroad  provide  for  disciplining  a  re- 
calcitrant nation.  A  fundamental  provision  of  all  of  them  is 
that  tliey  will  make  war  in  common  on  the  nation  which  attacks 
a  fellow  signatory  without  previous  reference  of  the  dispute  to 
inquiry. 

To  omit  this  provision  is  to  fail  to  discourage  war.  De- 
velopment of  the  various  international  institutions  we  have  now 
— Court  of  Arbitration,  Commission  of  Inquiry,  and  Hague 
Conference,  will,  it  is  true,  make  for  peace.  But  only  general 
agreement  to  use  force  against  a  nation  which  attempts  to  go 
to  war  without  previous  inquiry  into  the  dispute  will  positively 
discourage  war.  And  the  world  is  quite  disposed  to  adopt  the 
positive  measure  in  order  to  secure  that  great  end. 

Now,  what  will  happen  if  a  single  one  of  the  great  powers 
is  left  out  of  a  league  which  is  based  upon  that  principle?  Is 
it  not  plain  that  the  nation  we  attempt  to  discipline  will  at 
once  fall  back  on  the  outsider  for  help,  and  that  world  catas- 
trophe will  again  ensue?  In  other  words,  a  sine  qua  non  of 
the  present  league  plans  is  that  the  circle  of  the  league  must 
embrace  an  overwhelming  preponderance  of  military  power, 
force  so  overpowering  that  no  nation  will  be  so  foolish  as  to 
refuse  the  reasonable  demand  for  an  inquiry. 

Cropping  up  here  and  there  is  a  disposition  to  treat  Ger- 
many as  an  outcast,  to  exclude  her  from  the  League  until  we 
ascertain  whether  the  change  of  spirit  be  real,  i.e.,  to  put  her 
on  probation.  What  could  be  more  conducive  to  a  false  start? 
We  have  made  certain,  by  the  terms  of  the  armistice,  that  she 
cannot  make  another  such  wanton  assault  on  the  peace  of  the 
world  for  years  to  come.  We  are  forcing  her,  most  properly, 
by  money  loss  and  loss  of  territory,  to  expiate  her  crimes.  And 
the  German  people  themselves  are  making  sure  that  the  "Potsdam 
gang"  shall  not  again  ride  their  necks.  Now  let  us,  for  our  own 
sake,  act  as  Christians. 

A  League  of  Nations  is  bound  to  be  supposited  on  good 
faith  and  on  the  ultimate  triumph  of  good  sense  and  reason 
among  the  many.  We  begin  with  faith  in  Great  Britain,  France 
and  the  United  States  as  our  cornerstone,  because  of  kinship — 
kinship  either  of  ideals  and  political  institutions  or  of  historic 
background.  We  move  forward  to  faith  in  Italy  and  Japan,  as 
great  nations  which  have  a  strong  sense  of  right.     We  include 


A    LEAGUE    OF    NATIONS  225 

without  question  the  progressive  secondary  powers,  such  as 
Switzerland,  Holland  and  the  Scandinavian  countries.  We  can 
afford  to,  with  these  as  a  basis — in  fact,  we  must — found  the 
League  also  on  faith  in  our  former  enemies,  burned  white  by 
the  fire  of  an  awful  experience. 

Furthermore,  it  is  union,  not  dismemberment,  that  makes 
for  peace.  Witness  the  bloody  feuds  for  generations  along  the 
Scotch-English  border  until  these  two  lands  united.  Witness 
the  centuries  of  strife  between  city,  states  and  principalities  in 
Italy  until  Cavour  came  to  still  it  all  by  creating  a  united  Italy. 
Witness  the  early  internal  condition  of  all  the  European  lands 
until  strong  central  government  appeared.  If  Germany  and 
Austria  are  to  be  genuinely  democratized — and  what  reason  have 
we  to  doubt  it? — why  not  encourage  continued  union,  under  a 
system  of  local  self-government  throughout  the  area  of  each  of 
the  former  empires?  To  encourage  dismemberment  of  these 
states  with  a  view  to  weakening  them  is  not  in  the  interest  of 
future  peace. 

Germany's  practices  in  the  war  are  unspeakable.  Worse  still 
is  the  great  blood-guilt  of  bringing  on  the  war.  Some  things 
are  unforgivable.  Frankly,  her  deeds  fall  in  that  category. 
There  will  be  neither  forgetting  nor  forgiving  by  the  generation 
that  witnessed  them.  They  have  all  the  elements  of  criminality. 
Intent  was  there  and  the  attempt  was  not  abandoned  through  re- 
pentance but  only  when  a  full  accomplishment  of  the  deed  be- 
came impossible.  But  the  spirit  that  informs  the  criminal  law 
as  practiced  by  the  modern  world  is  prevention,  not  revenge. 
And  this  is  the  spirit  which  has  thus  far  motived  the  Allies. 

In  1870-71  Germany  was  not  invaded.  Not  a  German  build- 
ing was  destroyed.  Yet  she  expected  of  prostrate  France  five 
thousand  million  francs  indemnity  and  tore  from  her  two  fair 
provinces.  Acting  on  that  principle  the  Allies  would  have  added 
to  their  present  demand  for  reparation  untold  millions  as  in- 
demnity for  the  actual  money  outlay  of  the  war.  But,  moved 
by  a  high  wisdom,  they  have  done  nothing  of  the  kind.  Not  a 
penny  of  actual  indemnity  has  been  demanded.  When  some  in- 
ferior soul  cheats  us  we  do  not  boil  over  in  anger.  We  feel 
rather  a  great  pity  for  the  darkness  in  which  it  moves.  If  we 
feel  impelled  to  bring  the  culprit  before  the  bar  of  justice  it  is 
by  reason  of  no  other  motive  than  public  interest. 


226  SELECTED    ARTICLES 

Just  punishment  makes  for  prevention,  and  this  punishment 
the  German  people  are  getting.  But  the  armistice  is  untouched 
by  the  soiling  fingers  of  either  revenge  or  greed.  It  holds  be- 
fore it  the  single  aim  of  prevention,  and  the  truly  great  men 
who  are  guiding  the  destinies  of  triumphant  civilization  today 
see  that,  in  order  to  prevent  a  return  of  the  awful  experience  we 
have  just  passed  through,  we  must  have  international  organiza- 
tion from  which  no  great  state  can  be  left  out. 


FREEDOM    OF   THE   SEAS1 

To  the  Editor  of  The  New  York  Times : 

The  troublesome  question  of  the  freedom  of  the  seas  will 
not  be  solved  until  the  more  important  question  of  a  League  of 
Nations  is  attended  to  by  the  statesmen  of  the  great  powers. 
The  freedom  of  the  seas  and  what  it  means  can  be  compre- 
hended only  in  the  light  of  the  rights  of  neutrals  on  the  high 
seas.  Freedom  of  the  seas  means  making  the  seas  free  for  neu- 
tral commerce  in  time  of  war.  This  principle,  when  applied  in  a 
concrete  way  by  American  statesmen  and  writers,  has  resulted 
in  their  advocating  the  exemption  from  capture  at  sea  of  private 
property,  contraband  excepted. 

But  it  is  very  easy  to  see  that  a  League  of  Nations  when 
using  a  sea  power  in  the  interests  of  the  community  of  nations 
ought  not  to  have  any  obstacles  placed  in  the  way  of  making 
sea  power  effective.  When  used  for  enforcing  the  principles  of 
international  government,  no  question  of  neutral  rights  can  be 
raised,  for  there  will  not  be  any  such  status  as  neutrality  which 
a  nation  will  be  allowed  to  assume.  This,  of  course,  does  not 
mean  that  the  sea  power  that  may  be  used  in  the  future  by  the 
League  of  Nations  will  be  used  in  any  such  way  as  Germany 
has  used  her  submarines.  The  old  rules  should  be  followed  in 
respect  to  saving  ocean  passengers  and  crews,  it  is  true.  But 
the  old  rules  of  blockade,  of  contraband,  of  continuous  voyage, 
will  be  displaced  entirely  by  the  new  rule  that  sea  power  backed 
by  the  community  of  nations  can  do  all  that  is  necessary  to 
check  the  warlike  operations  and  the  commerce  of  the  nation 
that  is  breaking  the  world's  peace. 

1  New  York  Times,  November  10,   1918. 


A    LEAGUE    OF    NATIONS  ^ 

The  United  States  has  constantly  advocated  the  freedom  of 
the  seas,  because  its  interests  have  been  along  the  line  of  keeping 
out  of  war.  Its  interests  have  seemed  to  demand  a  policy  of 
neutrality,  and  it  has  resented  the  acts  of  any  nation  which  used 
its  naval  power  in  such  a  manner  as  to  injure  neutral  commerce. 
President  Roosevelt  in  his  annual  message  to  Congress  of  Dec. 
7,  1903,  recommended  that  that  body  authorize  the  Executive  to 
correspond  with  the  great  powers  with  the  view  of  securing 
general  recognition  of  the  freedom  of  the  seas  by  the  concrete 
method  of  exempting  private  property  at  sea  from  capture  with 
the  exception  of  contraband  of  war.  No  agreement  has  ever 
been  reached  on  the  proposition. 

The  experience  of  this  war,  however,  has  shown  that  it  is 
impossible  to  remain  neutral  when  a  war  is  carried  on  on  such  a 
large  scale.  Our  interest  in  the  future  would  seem  to  be  in  co- 
operating with  other  nations  to  prevent  as  far  as  possible  the 
outbreak  of  war.  If  this  co-operation  cannot  be  secured  we 
must  fall  back  on  our  former  proposition  and  again  champion 
with  all  our  might  the  freedom  of  the  seas  as  concretely  put 
forward  by  President  Roosevelt  and  by  earlier  leaders  of  the 
American  people.  We  shall  have  to  begin  once  more  with  the 
Declaration  of  Paris,  the  Declaration  of  London,  and  with  the 
more  recent  Code  of  Neutral  Rights,  which  has  been  prepared 
by  the  American  Institute  of  International  Law. 

Earl  Willis  Crecraft. 


FREEDOM    OF   THE    SEAS1 

The  Allies  have  accepted  all  of  the  American  terms  with  two 
exceptions.  They  have  extended  the  demand  for  reparation  to 
all  damages  inflicted  upon  civilians,  and  in  this  the  President 
rightfully  concurs.  They  have  questioned  the  clause  demanding 
the  -freedom  of  the  seas,  but  this  the  President  cannot  withdraw 
without  repudiating  the  historic  policy  of  the  United  States 
from  Washington  to  Wilson  inclusive.  The  interference  of 
England  with  our  navigation  was  one  of  the  chief  causes  of  the 
Revolution,  as  the  Declaration  of  Independence  recites.  We 
fought  England  again  in  1812  in  defense  of  the  same  right,  but 

1  Independent,    p.  196.    November  16,  1918. 


228  SELECTED    ARTICLES 

failed  to  get  it  assured  in  the  Treaty  of  Ghent.  Nor  during  the 
century  since  have  we  been  able  to  make  our  views  prevail  in 
the  world  at  large  and  today  there  seems  little  chance  of  it. 
England  and  France  have  always  opposed  the  American  doc- 
trine of  the  freedom  of  the  seas  and  they  still  do.  Prussia, 
which  was  the  first  of  the  foreign  powers  to  accept  it,  has  been 
in  the  Great  War  the  most  ruthless  violator  of  it  and  we  can- 
not trust  her  present  profession  of  it.  President  Wilson's  polite 
but  plain  spoken  remonstrances  at  the  beginning  of  the  war 
against  British  interference  with  the  freedom  of  trade  and 
navigation  without  even  the  pretense  of  a  blockade  had  no  ef- 
fect, and  since  our  sympathy  was  wholly  with  the  cause  of  the 
Allies  we  had  no  disposition  to  insist  upon  our  technical  rights. 
But  when  Germany  began  her  barbaric  warfare  upon  the  high 
seas  we  promptly  entered  the  conflict  and  brought  Germany  to 
her  knees.  It  was  our  third  war  for  the  freedom  of  the  seas, 
or  our  fourth  if  we  count  the  war  against  the  Barbary  States 
to  protect  the  shipping  of  the  Mediterranean. 

The  question  must  be  brought  before  the  peace  conference 
for  discussion,  but  it  is  evident  in  advance  that  the  opposition 
will  be  too  great  to  carry  the  idea  thru  in  its  original  form  as 
enunciated  by  Franklin,  Jefferson  and  Washington.  But  the 
President  proposes  a  different  solution : 

Second — Absolute  freedom  of  navigation  upon  the  seas,  outside  terri- 
torial waters,  alike  in  peace  and  in  war,  except  as  the  seas  may  be  closed 
in  whole  or  in  part  by  international  action  for  the  enforcement  of  inter- 
national covenants. 

This  asserts  the  freedom  of  the  seas  but  not  as  an  inalien- 
able and  irreducible  natural  right.  It  recognizes  that  it  may  be 
necessary  to  limit  this  freedom,  but  declares  that  the  power  to 
do  it  shall  not  as  at  present  be  in  the  hands  of  whatever  nation 
happens  to  have  at  any  time  the  most  powerful  navy  but  be  ex- 
ercised solely  by  international  action  for  international  aims.  The 
League  of  Nations  shall  be  mistress  of  the  seas.  In  this  form 
the  doctrine  ought  to  find  acceptance  even  from  those  countries 
that  have  hitherto  opposed  it. 


A    LEAGUE    OF    NATIONS  229 


THE  MONROE  DOCTRINE  AND  THE  PROGRAM 
OF  THE  LEAGUE  TO  ENFORCE  PEACE1 

There  have  been  some  arguments  against  the  platform  of 
the  League  to  Enforce  Peace.  One  of  the  most  frequently  ad- 
vanced of  these  arguments  is  that  the  carrying  out  of  the  plat- 
form of  the  League  would  violate  the  so-called  Monroe  Doc- 
trine. These  words,  the  Monroe  Doctrine,  have  been  used  to 
designate  or  to  conceal  such  a  variety  of  ideas  and  practices  that 
it  is  necessary  to  start  with  some  premise  as  to  what  the  Monroe 
Doctrine  may  be. 

If  the  Monroe  Doctrine  is,  as  Professor  Bingham  says,  an 
"obsolete  shibboleth,"  it  is  clear  that  the  relation  of  the  platform 
of  the  League  to  its  content  would  be  one  of  historical  and 
speculative  interest  only.  If  on  the  other  hand  it  is,  as  Mr. 
Petin  says,  the  substitution  by  the  United  States  of  an  "Amer- 
ican law  for  the  general  law  of  nations,"  the  relations  of  the 
Monroe  Doctrine  to  the  platform  of  the  League  would  be  a 
fundamental  question.  If  the  Monroe  Doctrine  is  an  assertion 
of  the  "supremacy  of  the  United  States  in  the  Western  Hemi- 
sphere" or  "supremacy  in  political  leadership,"  there  would  also 
be  reason  for  careful  deliberation.  A  careful  investigation 
would,  however*  show  that  the  Monroe  Doctrine  is  not  a  part 
of  international  law. 

The  statement  of  the  Doctrine  has  varied.  Early  discussions 
in  the  cabinet  before  the  Doctrine  was  set  forth  in  Monroe's 
message  seem  to  have  been  as  lively  as  some  later  ones  upon 
the  same  subject.  Jefferson,  when  consulted  upon  the  advisabil- 
ity of  a  policy  which  would  not  "suffer  Europe  to  intermeddle 
with  cis-Atlantic  affairs,"  comparing  the  Declaration  of  Inde- 
pendence with  this  doctrine,  said :  "That  [the  Declaration] 
made  us  a  nation,  this  sets  our  compass  and  points  the  course 
which  we  are  to  steer  through  the  ocean  of  time  opening  on  us." 
In  the  early  days  of  the  Monroe  Doctrine  the  aim  was  to  avoid 
further  European  interference  in  American  affairs.     Later,  par- 

1  By  George  Grafton  Wilson,  professor  of  international  law  at  Harvard 
University.  Read  at  the  first  National  Assemblage  of  the  League  to 
Enforce  Peace  at  Washington  on  May  26,  19 16,  under  the  general  topic 
"Practicability  of  the  League  Program."  Reprinted  from  the  World  Peace 
Foundation,  vol.  vi.  No.  4,  August,  19 16. 


230  SELECTED    ARTICLES 

ticularly  from  the  days  of  President  Polk,  the  Doctrine  assumed 
a  more  positive  form.  Bismarck  is  reported  to  have  called  the 
Doctrine  a  piece  of  "international  impertinence."  In  1901  Pres- 
ident Roosevelt  in  his  annual  message  declared:  "The  Monroe 
Doctrine  should  be  the  cardinal  feature  of  the  foreign  policy  of 
all  the  nations  of  the  two  Americas,  as  it  is  of  the  United 
States,"  and  in  1904  that  "the  Monroe  Doctrine  may  force  the 
United  States,  however  reluctantly,  in  flagrant  cases  of  such 
wrongdoing  or  impotence  to  the  exercise  of  an  international 
police  power."  President  Taft  intimated  in  his  message  in  1909 
that  "the  apprehension  which  gave  rise  to  the  Monroe  Doctrine 
may  be  said  to  have  already  disappeared  and  neither  the  doc- 
trine as  it  exists  nor  any  other  doctrine  of  American  policy 
should  be  permitted  to  operate  for  the  perpetuation  of  irre- 
sponsible government,  the  escape  of  just  obligations  or  the  in- 
sidious allegation  of  dominating  ambitions  on  the  part  of  the 
United  States." 

The  construction  of  the  Panama  Canal  gave  rise  to  new 
problems.  The  rumor  that  foreigners  were  making  purchases 
of  land  about  Magdalena  Bay  in  Mexico  led  to  pronouncements 
in  the  United  States  Senate  in  1912,  that  the  United  States 
could  not  view  foreign  possession  of  this  or  any  such  harbor 
"without  grave  concern"  and  it  was  admitted  that  this  is  a 
"statement  of  policy,  allied  to  the  Monroe  Doctrine  of  course, 
but  not  necessarily  dependent  upon  it  or  growing  out  of  it." 

As  in  the  early  days  the  United  States  considered  it  within 
its  rights  to  assert  a  policy  defensive  in  its  nature  but  for  the 
preservation  of  its  well-being,  so  in  later  days  the  same  general 
policy  has  taken  differing  forms.  President  Wilson  early  in  his 
administration  endeavored  to  assure  the  Americas  of  his  desire 
for  the  cordial  cooperation  of  the  people  of  the  different  na- 
tions, and  a  little  later  he  asserted,  "we  are  friends  of  constitu- 
tional government  in  America;  we  are  more  than  its  friends,  we 
are  its  champions";  and,  in  the  same  message,  he  declared  that 
the  United  States  "must  regard  it  as  one  of  the  duties  of  friend- 
ship to  see  that  from  no  quarter  are  material  interests  made 
superior  to  human  liberty  and  national  opportunity."  President 
Roosevelt  had  in  1901  asserted  that  the  Doctrine  referred  not 
merely  to  European  but  to  "any  non-American  power."  This 
was  recognized  abroad,  as  Sir  Edward  Grey  said  in  191 1  of  the 


A    LEAGUE    OF    NATIONS  231 

United  States:  "They  had  a  policy  associated  with  the  name  of 
Monroe,  the  cardinal  point  of  which  was  that  no  European  or 
non-American  nation  should  acquire  fresh  territory  on  the  con- 
tinent of  America." 

In  December,  1913,  Mr.  Page,  the  American  Ambassador  to 
Great  Britain,  announced  a  late  form  of  policy,  saying:  "We 
have  now  developed  subtler  ways  than  taking  their  lands.  There 
is  the  taking  of  their  bonds,  for  instance.  Therefore,  the  im- 
portant proposition  is  that  no  sort  of  financial  control  can,  with- 
out the  consent  of  the  United  States,  be  obtained  over  these 
weaker  nations  which  would  in  effect  control  their  government." 

These  and  many  other  views  as  to  the  significance  of  the 
Monroe  Doctrine  show  the  varying  forms  in  which  the  United 
States  has  stated  its  opposition  to  the  permament  occupation  of 
territory  or  acquisition  of  political  control  in  the  American 
hemisphere  by  non-American  powers.  It  has  seemed  necessary 
to  present  these  differing  ideas  of  the  Monroe  Doctrine  to  show 
that  it  is  not  law  and  to  show  that,  as  a  manifestation  of  policy, 
it  is  not  set  forth  in  any  single  formula. 

As  single  nations  and  as  groups  of  nations  have  policies 
which  vary  in  different  parts  of  the  world,  and  as  the  conflict  of 
policies  rather  than  the  violation  of  established  law  is  the  fre- 
quent cause  of  international  differences,  it  is  evident  that,  if  the 
League  to  Enforce  Peace  cannot  provide  any  aid  in  case  of  con- 
flict of  policies,  its  function  will  be  comparatively  restricted. 
The  conflict  of  policy  would  rarely  take  a  form  which  would 
make  justiciable  methods  practicable  as  a  means  to  settlement. 

This  being  the  case,  reference  of  such  matters  would  be  to 
the  council  of  conciliation  provided  for  in  the  second  article  of 
the  platform  of  the  League  to  Enforce  Peace.  The  first  article 
provides  for  justiciable  questions  and  the  second  states: 

"All  other  questions  arising  between  the  signatories  and  not  settled 
by  negotiation  shall  be  submitted  to  a  council  of  conciliation  for  hearing, 
consideration  and  recommendation." 

A  dispute  in  regard  to  the  Monroe  Doctrine  or  involving  its 
principles,  whatever  they  may  be,  would  surely  be  included  in 
the  agreement  made  by  the  United  States  to  refer  disputes  "of 
every  nature  whatsoever"  to  an  international  commission  for  in- 
vestigation and  report.     This  principle  has  had  indorsement  by 


232  SELECTED    ARTICLES 

leaders  in  preceding  administrations  as  well  as  in  the  action  upon 
these  treaties  by  the  present  administration,  and  is  therefore  not 
to  be  regarded  as  embodying  partisan  policies.  The  United 
States  is  already  bound  to  act  as  regards  the  Monroe  Doctrine 
in  disputes  which  may  arise  with  most  states  in  a  fashion  in  ex- 
act accord  with  the  second  article  of  the  platform  of  the  League 
to  Enforce  Peace.  The  aim  of  the  League  is  secured  when  the 
question  which  negotiation  has  been  unable  to  settle  is  sub- 
mitted "for  hearing,  consideration  and  recommendation,"  and  it 
makes  little  difference  whether  the  body  to  which  it  is  submitted 
is  called  an  "international  commission"  or  a  "council  of  con- 
ciliation." 

If,  then,  the  United  States  and  thirty  or  more  nations  are  al- 
ready bound  to  the  principle  of  the  second  article  of  the 
League's  platform  so  far  as  the  Monroe  Doctrine  and  other 
matters  are  subjects  of  dispute,  there  would  seem  to  be  no  reason 
for  raising  the  question  of  the  practicability  of  that  part  of  the 
program  at  the  present  time.  Its  practicability  has  already  been 
formally  declared,  and,  as  embodied  in  treaty  provisions,  is  a 
part  of  the  law  of  the  land. 

Any  further  discussion  as  to  the  practicability  of  the  applica- 
tion of  the  League's  program  to  differences  arising  in  regard  to 
the  Monroe  Doctrine  would  involve  the  question  as  to  whether 
treaties  already  made  will  be  observed  when  put  to  the  test.  Put 
concretely  the  question  may  be,  will  the  United  States,  which  has 
made  treaties  with  certain  states  agreeing  to  submit  to  an  inter- 
national commission  disputes  "of  every  nature  whatsoever,"  find 
it  practicable  to  submit  a  dispute  arising  in  regard  to  the  Monroe 
Doctrine  to  such  a  commission,  or  will  the  United  States  disre- 
gard the  treaty,  and  did  the  United  States  so  intend  in  making 
the  treaty.  It  is  to  be  hoped,  and  it  must  be  believed,  that  these 
treaties  were  made  in  good  faith  and  that  the  parties  to  the 
treaties  intend  to  observe  their  provisions.  It  has  been  an- 
nounced that  the  United  States  proposes  to  observe  in  principle 
toward  other  nations  not  parties  to  such  treaties  the  conduct 
prescribed  in  these  treaties.  These  treaties  are  called  treaties  for 
the  "Advancement  of  Peace"  and  declare  as  their  object  "to  con- 
tribute to  the  development  of  the  spirit  of  universal  peace"  or 
"to  serve  the  cause  of  general  peace."  Accordingly,  the  en- 
forcement of  these  treaties  is  regarded  by  these  states  as  at  Jeast 
desirable  for  the  sake  of  peace. 


A    LEAGUE    OF    NATIONS  233 

Under  the  general  -practice  and  law  of  nations  the  violation 
of  a  treaty  may  be  a  just  cause  of  war.  If  this  be  so,  then  it  is 
particularly  essential  that  treaties  for  "the  development  of  the 
spirit  of  universal  peace"  be  kept.  It  would  seem  to  be  a  simple 
proposition  that  the  greater  the  risk  of  violation  of  a  treaty  the 
less  ready  a  state  will  be  to  violate  the  treaty.  This  principle 
generally  prevails,  though  at  times  states  disregard  all  risks.  If 
there  is  behind  a  treaty  the  compelling  force  of  the  fact  of  a 
signed  agreement  and  the  physical  resources  of  the  other  signa- 
tory only,  the  fact  of  the  agreement  seems  often,  even  in  modern 
times,  to  have  had  little  weight,  and  the  sole  deterrent  seems  to 
have  been  the  physical  power  which  might  be  felt  if  the  agree- 
ment was  not  observed.  This  has  given  rise  to  the  maxim  often 
quoted  that  "a  treaty  is  as  strong  as  the  force  behind  it."  There 
is  undoubtedly  some  truth  in  the  maxim.  The  program  of  the 
League  to  Enforce  Peace  proposes  to  adopt  what  is  beneficial 
in  the  maxim  and  to  put  behind  treaties  a  degree  of  force  which 
weak  states  might  by  themselves  be  unable  to  command.  If,  un- 
der the  provision  by  which  the  United  States  and  other  states 
have  agreed  to  refer  to  an  international  commission  all  differ- 
ences, there  is  a  reservation  as  regards  matters  affecting  the 
Monroe  Doctrine,  this  reservation  is  not  expressed  or  implied. 

In  brief,  the  United  States  would  be  obliged,  so  far  as  mem- 
bers of  the  League  were  concerned,  to  do  exactly  what  it  is  now 
obliged  by  treaty  agreement  to  do  with  most  of  the  states  of  the 
world ;  and,  as  these  treaty  states  would  probably  be  the  mem- 
bers of  the  League,  the  conditions  would  be  changed  in  no  re- 
spect, except  that  behind  the  treaty  obligation  would  be  the  sanc- 
tion of  the  justified  use  of  economic  and  military  force  in  addi- 
tion to  other  sanctions. 

Further,  it  may  be  said  if,  when  in  dispute,  the  Monroe  Doc- 
trine as  applied  by  the  United  States  is  not  a  poiicy  upon  which 
the  United  States  is  willing  to  await  hearing,  consideration  and 
recommendation,  then  the  United  States  has  not  acted  in  good 
faith  in  signing  these  recent  treaties ;  and  it  may  also  be  said,  if 
the  American  policy  as  embodied  in  the  Monroe  Doctrine  will 
not  stand  the  test  of  investigation  and  consideration,  that  it  is 
time  for  the  United  States  to  be  determining  why  it  should 
longer  give  to  the  Doctrine  its  support. 

As  the  plan  of  the  League  for  submssion  of  controversies 


234  SELECTED    ARTICLES 

such  as  might  arise  over  the  Monroe  Doctrine  has,  on  the  initia- 
tive of  the  United  States,  already  been  embodied  in  treaties 
with  a  greater  part  of  the  states  of  the  world,  such  a  plan  cannot 
be  regarded  as  impracticable  without  condemnation  of  the  judg- 
ment of  those  who  are  in  control  of  the  affairs  of  the  world, 
and  this  judgment  the  League  to  Enforce  Peace,  having  the 
well-being  of  the  world  in  view,  does  not  criticize  and  condemn, 
but  supports  and  commends. 


THE  MONROE  DOCTRINE  AND  A  LEAGUE  OF 
NATIONS 1 

The  declaration  of  United  States  policy  associated  with  the 
name  of  President  Monroe,  but  really  due  to  John  Quincy 
Adams,  and  in  some  measure  also  to  the  suggestions  of  George 
Canning  (then  British  Foreign  Secretary),  was  originally  de- 
livered as  announcing  a  restriction  of  limitation  which  America 
proposed  to  place  on  her  own  action.  She  would  not  interfere 
in  the  wars  and  alliances  of  the  Old  World  and  she  expected 
that  in  return  the  states  of  the  Old  World  would  not  interfere 
with  the  affairs  of  the  Western  Hemisphere.  If  they  tried  to 
introduce  their  political  system  into  the  New  World  they  must 
expect  her  opposition.  This  declaration  was  aimed  at  the  so- 
called  Holy  Alliance  of  Austria,  Russia,  and  Prussia,  which, 
having  pledged  itself  to  maintain  autocratic  government  in  the 
European  continent,  was  contemplating  interference  in  South 
America  against  the  insurgent  colonies  of  Spain.  Another  part 
of  Monroe's  declaration  which  referred  to  territorial  aggression 
by  European  powers  was  apparently  meant  as  a  warning  to 
Russia,  which  had  advanced  large  territorial  claims  in  the  far 
Northwest. 

The  danger  that  any  European  power  would  try  | to  found  a 
new  dominion  in  the  Western  Hemisphere  has  latterly  seemed 
too  remote  to  be  worth  regarding,  but  what  we  have  recently 
learned  of  the  far-reaching  plans  and  hopes  of  the  German 
Government  makes  it  pretty  clear  that  if  they  had  come  vic- 
torious out  of  this  war,  with  a  navy  able  to  command  the  At- 
lantic, they  would  have  endeavored  to  set  up  a  dependent  German 

1  By  Viscount  Bryce.    Nation.     105:659.    December  13,  191 7- 


A    LEAGUE    OF    NATIONS  235 

state,  or  perhaps  a  province  of  the  German  Empire,  in  southern 
Brazil.  This  is  a  region  of  superb  natural  resources  containing  a 
very  large  population  sprung  from  Germany,  and  still  speaking 
German,  though  there  is  not  the  slightest  reason  to  suppose  that 
they  desired  to  exchange  their  present  freedom  for  the  rule  of 
the  Prussian  officer  and  the  Prussian  bureaucraft. 

The  United  States,  which  would  then  have  had  to  come  to 
the  rescue  of  Brazil,  has  fortunately  already  thrown  herself 
into  the  conflict  for  justice,  liberty,  and  the  rights  of  the  smaller 
peoples.  Monroe's  policy,  which  was  also  Washington's,  of 
holding  aloof  from  European  complications  was  long  main- 
tained, and  wisely  maintained,  by  America,  but  the  current  of 
events  has  been  too  strong  to  make  it  possible  to  stand  apart 
any  longer.  The  whole  world  has  now  become  one,  and  must 
remain  one  for  the  purposes  of  politics.  No  great  nation  can 
stand  out. 

Thus  the  Monroe  Doctrine  in  its  old  form  may  seem  to  have 
disappeared;  for  the  counterpart  to  the  exclusion  of  the  Euro- 
pean Powers  from  interfering  with  the  freedom  of  American 
states  was  the  abstentation  of  America  from  interference  in 
European  affairs.  Yet  what  has  really  happened  may  turn  out 
to  be  not  a  supersession  of  the  Doctrine,  but  rather  an  exten- 
sion of  what  was  soundest  in  its  principle.  The  action  of  the 
German  Government  in  proclaiming  a  general  submarine  war- 
fare was  a  threat  to  which  no  self-respecting  nation  could  have 
submitted.  It  was  addressed  to  the  western  nations  as  well  as 
those  of  Europe.  It  showed  that  there  were  dangers  which  in- 
volved all  maritime  powers  alike  and  which  western  nations 
must  join  the  European  allies  in  combating.  The  unbridled  am- 
bition and  the  aggressive  spirit  of  the  German  Government  are 
compelling  all  the  nations  which  love  peace  and  law  and  freedom 
to  come  together  to  secure  for  themselves  that  which  America, 
in  proclaiming  the  Monroe  Doctrine  against  the  Holy  Alliance, 
desired  to  secure  for  the  western  continent. 

There  is  need  to-day  for  a  League  of  Nations  which  will  en- 
deavor to  extend  its  protection  to  all  the  world  and  not  to  one 
continent  only.  In  any  such  combination  to  secure  justice  and 
tranquility  based  upon  right,  the  presence  of  the  United  States 
would  be  invaluable  and  would  indeed  be  necessary  if  the  com- 
bination were  to  secure  those  blessings  for  the  world. 


236  SELECTED    ARTICLES 

LORD  LANSDOWNE  AND  THE  LEAGUE  OF 
NATIONS x 

The  primary  condition,  if  there  is  to  be  any  chance  of  pro- 
viding an  effective  sanction  to  prevent  the  recurrence  of  aggres- 
sive warfare,  is  a  measure  of  relative  disarmament  among  the 
nations  party  to  the  League.  I  have  noticed  that  this  condition 
has  been  overlooked  in  much  of  the  criticism  levelled  at  the 
principle  of  a  League  of  Nations.  It  is  not  realised  that  such  a 
League  should  be  a  substitute  for  the  doctrine  of  "Balance  of 
Power,"  the  favourite  phrase  of  diplomatists,  and  no  doubt  of 
importance  so  long  as  the  doctrine  of  force  prevails  in  the  set- 
tlement of  international  disputes.  The  result  in  Europe  was 
aptly  summarised  by  Mr.  Asquith.  "Such  a  state  of  interna- 
tional relationship  without  any  solid  foundation,  ethical  or  polit- 
ical, was  bound,  by  its  very  stability  to  stimulate  naval  and  mil- 
itary activity.  No  one  felt  secure."  An  effective  sanction  im- 
plies the  possibility  of  an  ultimate  resort  to  force,  and  the  arma- 
ment of  each  member  of  the  League  should  not  be  so  constituted 
as  to  menace  the  power  of  the  whole  co-partnership,  or  to  neces- 
sitate the  maintenance,  or  use,  of  an  unnecessary  large  co-part- 
nership force.  Moreover,  if  countries  accept  the  burden  of 
maintaining  armaments  at  their  present  level,  it  would  be  con- 
trary to  human  experience  to  hope,  that  they  would  be  anxious 
to  abstain  from  the  use  of  the  costly  machinery.  There  is  a 
further  reason  which  tells  in  favour  of  an  agreement  for  a 
relative  all-around  measure  of  disarmament  at  the  present  time. 
Whatever  else  may  be  the  effect,  of  the  present  war,  it  will  cer- 
tainly result  in  a  period  of  financial  exhaustion.  The  re-estab- 
lishment of  normal  conditions  will  require  the  use  of  all  avail- 
able capital  for  industrial  purposes.  The  Chancellor  of  the  Ex- 
chequer has  thought  it  necessary  to  write  a  letter  to  the  Press 
on  the  security  of  the  National  Debt,  a  letter  which  would  prob- 
ably not  have  escaped  the  Censorship  if  written  by  a  private 
individual.  It  is  hardly  necessary  to  write  a  letter  to  emphasise 
so  patent  a  truism  as  that  either  the  repudiation  of  the  National 
Debt,  or  the  compulsory  reduction  in  the  rate  of  interest,  would 

1  By  Lord  Parmoor.     Contemporary  Review,     p.   10.    January,   19 18. 


A    LEAGUE    OF    NATIONS  237 

mean  a  disastrous  interference  with  those  principles  of  security 
and  honesty  absolutely  essential  to  the  maintenance  of  industrial 
progress.  There  is,  however,  an  alternative  at  hand,  which 
should  give  greater  assurance,  than  a  letter  of  an  individual  who 
happens  to  be  a  member  of  the  Government  for  the  time  being. 
An  agreement  for  the  relative  reduction  of  armaments  would 
lessen  the  enormous  sums  now  being  spent  on  the  costly  plant 
which  modern  warfare  requires,  and  tend  to  redirect  science  into 
the  more  beneficient  lines  of  a  research  tending  to  promote,  not 
human  destruction,  but  fresh  discovery  in  alleviation  of  human 
suffering  and  in  mitigation  of  human  poverty. 

The  Papal  Note,  to  which  reference  is  made  in  the  letter, 
uses  the  phrase  "the  establishment  of  arbitration."  Probably 
this  phrase  is  not  used  in  any  technical  sense.  There  are  some 
questions  for  which  arbitration  is  applicable,  and  during  the  last 
century  no  fewer  than  471  cases  of  international  disputes  were 
settled  by  arbitration  methods.  It  is,  however,  of  importance  to 
realise  that,  if  a  League  of  Nations  is  to  be  a  permanent  suc- 
cess, a  sufficiently  strong  international  tribunal  cannot  be  con- 
stituted on  the  arbitration  principle.  The  weakness  of  arbitra- 
tion is  that  the  so-called  Arbitration  Court  is  not  really  an  im- 
partial body,  but  consists  of  advocates  on  either  side,  with 
selected  umpire  or  umpires.  The  result  is  that  the  decision 
generally  depends  not  on  the  judgment  of  the  tribunal,  but  on 
that  of  the  individual  or  individuals,  who  act  as  umpire  of  um- 
pires. Consequently  the  authority  is  of  limited  character,  and 
the  decisions  do  not  carry  sufficient  weight  to  build  up  a  body  of 
accepted  precedent.  A  League  of  Nations  requires  a  permanent 
international  Court,  judicial  in  character,  and  with  that  atmos- 
phere of  trained  impartiality  which  is  the  distinguishing  feature 
of  a  well-constituted  tribunal.  This  tribunal  should  be  com- 
posed of  the  highest  available  judicial  ability,  such  as  would  be 
likely  to  ensure  a  loyal  acceptance  of  its  decisions.  A  Court  so 
constituted  would  be  competent  to  decide  all  judiciable  ques- 
tions, such  as  the  interpretation  of  treaties,  and  questions  ca- 
pable of  judicial  treatment.  In  comparatively  modern  times, 
Courts  of  great  authority  have  been  constituted  with  the  best 
possible  results,  not  international  in  character,  but  exercising 
jurisdiction  over  independently  constituted  subject  tribunals. 
Striking  illustrations  may  be   found   in  the   Supreme  Court  of 


238  SELECTED    ARTICLES 

the  United  States  of  America,  and  in  the  Judicial  Committee  of 
the  Privy  Council.  It  would  be  a  fitting  testimony  to  the  law- 
abiding  instincts  of  the  two  Anglo-Saxon  communities,  if,  start- 
ing from  the  experience  which  they  have  already  gained,  they 
would  co-operate  in  suggesting  the  framework  on  which  an  in- 
ternational tribunal  of  sufficient  weight  and  authority  might  be 
constructed.  There  are  questions  other  than  justiciable  which 
should  be  referred  to  a  council  of  conciliation;  but  space  does 
not  enable  me  to  follow  further  this  branch  of  the  subject. 

It  would  be  useless  to  attempt  to  form  a  League  of  Nations, 
unless  the  orders  made  by  the  International  Court  are  enforce- 
able by  adequate  sanction.  A  Court,  whose  orders  could  not  be 
enforced,  would  lose  its  authority  and  sink  into  insignificance. 
The  difficulty  of  providing  a  sanction  has  been  recognized  from 
the  time  of  Grotius,  who  lived  through  a  period  of  almost  con- 
tinuous devasting  warfare,  and  realised  that  strong  human 
passions  could  not  be  governed  without  an  appeal  to  force  as  the 
ultimate  resort.  It  probably  would  not  be  necessary  to  resort 
often  to  such  a  sanction;  but  this  would  largely  depend  on  the 
prestige  and  authority  of  the  tribunal,  and  the  extent  to  which 
it  could  demand  a  loyal  acceptance  of  its  decisions.  Two  meth- 
ods of  sanction  have  been  suggested — the  sanction  of  industrial 
boycott,  and  the  sanction  of  armed  force.  There  is  no  reason 
why  these  two  forms  should  not  be  applied  with  cumulative 
effect;  but  I  agree  with  what  was  said  by  Mr.  Asquith  in  an 
interview  in  which  he  referred  to  an  international  authority: 
"That  the  rule  of  its  authority  must  be  supported  in  case  of  need 
by  the  strength  of  all,  that  is,  in  the  last  resort,  by  armed  force." 
This  implies,  that,  in  the  event  of  disobedience  to  the  orders  of 
the  International  Court,  it  might  become  necessary  to  use  all  the 
force  of  the  League  against  the  peccant  nationality.  The  jus- 
tification is  that,  in  the  face  of  such  a  combination,  the  outbreak 
of  war  is  improbable,  and  that,  if  it  does  break  out,  the  condi- 
tions would  be  unfavourable  to  the  aggressor,  and  that,  in  any 
event,  the  waste  and  ruin  would  be  less  terrible  than  in  a  world 
conflagration.  The  question  of  sanction  was  considered  in  the 
propositions  formulated  at  the  Conference  of  the  League  of 
Nations  to  enforce  peace  held  in  the  United  States  on  May  26, 
1916.  It  is  said  that  this  meeting  was  the  largest  and  most  dis- 
tinguished gathering  of  a  voluntary  character  that  ever  assem- 


A    LEAGUE    OF    NATIONS  239 

bled  in  the  city  of  Washington.  Mr.  Taft,  the  late  President  of 
the  United  States  was  elected  president  of  the  League,  and  we 
find  in  the  first  chapter  that  "right  thinking  men  in  every  land 
resolved  within  a  week  of  the  beginning  of  that  tragedy  (the 
present  war)  that  it  should  never  be  repeated  if  they  could  help 
it.  Given  this  attitude  of  mind  it  was  inevitable  that  some  sort 
of  creative  action  should  follow,  not  to  stop  nor  even  to  limit 
nor  control  the  war  then  raging,  for  all  recognised  the  futility 
of  any  such  attempt;  but  to  set  in  motion  the  machinery  that 
would  provide  something  to  take  the  place  of  slaughter  in  set- 
tling some,  if  not  all,  future  international  disputes."  The  prin- 
ciples formulated  contained  a  proposed  sanction  which  was  sub- 
sequently elaborated  in  the  following  form:  "The  signatory 
Power  shall  jointly  use,  forthwith,  their  economic  forces  against 
any  of  their  number  that  refuses  to  submit  any  question  which 
arises  to  an  international  judicial  tribunal  or  council  of  con- 
ciliation before  issuing  an  ultimatum  or  threatening  war.  They 
shall  follow  this  by  the  joint  use  of  their  military  forces  against 
that  nation  if  it  actually  proceeds  to  make  war  or  invades  an- 
other's territory."  I  have  been  doubtful  as  to  the  use  of  an 
economic  boycott;  but  the  proposal  that  it  should  be  used  as  a 
penalty  against  any  member  of  the  League,  which  refuses  to 
submit  the  dispute  to  an  international  judicial  tribunal,  or  coun- 
cil of  conciliation,  before  issuing  an  ultimation,  or  threatening 
war,  appears  to  be  a  valuable  form  of  sancton  which  may  be 
adequate  without  actual  resort  to  military  force.  Certainly  the 
time  has  come  when  an  effort  should  be  made  to  formulate  the 
organisation  of  a  League  of  Nations  on  an  effective  basis.  To 
the  formidable  array  of  authority  which  Lord  Lansdowne 
quoted  in  favour  of  the  principle  of  a  League  of  Nations  two 
further  illustrations  may  be  added.  In  Switzerland  a  congress 
of  the  "Societe  Suisse  de  la  Paix"  was  held  which  declared  that 
a  durable  peace  ought  to  "establish  respect  for  treaties,  the  lib- 
erty of  nations  to  dispose  freely  of  themselves,  the  necessity  of 
compulsory  arbitration,  the  limitation  of  armaments,  the  aboli- 
tion of  secret  diplomacy,  and  an  agreement  between  nations  to 
constitute  a  Society  of  Nations."  Resolutions  were  further 
passed  calling  upon  the  Swiss  Government  to  summon  a  con- 
ference to  examine  the  conditions  under  which  Switzerland 
might  become  a  member  of  the  League  and  to  take  a  suitable 


240  SELECTED    ARTICLES 

opportunity  to  summon  an  International  Congress  to  determine 
the  fundamental  conditions  of  the  League.  In  France  there  has 
been  a  difference  of  opinion,  but  M.  Thomas,  formerly  French 
Minister  of  Munitions,  has  said,  "that  after  the  establishment 
of  the  right  of  France  to  Alsace-Lorraine,  the  most  important 
war  aim  is  the  establishment  of  a  Society  of  Nations."  I  think 
enough  has  been  said  to  show  the  importance  of  Lord  Lans- 
downe's  insistence  on  a  League  of  Nations  as  a  security  against 
the  recurrence  of  aggressive  warfare,  and  to  negative  the  ex- 
aggerated criticism  which  appears  to  have  been  really  aimed 
against  any  expression  of  independent  opinion.  When  the  Rep- 
resentation of  the  People  Bill  has  been  passed  into  law,  and  the 
House  of  Common  is  renovated  by  contact  with  the  electorate, 
there  is  hope  of  a  freer  atmosphere  and  a  less  intolerant  spirit. 


A  PEACE  LEAGUE  BASED  ON  POPULATION  x 

The  first  essential  of  a  successful  league  is  that  it  should 
be  constituted  in  such  a  manner  as  would  not  only  lead  to  the 
doing  of  real  justice  in  all  disputes,  but  would  also  convince 
each  separate  nation  that  that  nation  was  having  a  fair  chance 
in  the  activities  of  the  league.  Unless  real  justice  is  done 
and  unless  the  nations  are  satisfied  as  to  the  general  fairness 
of  the  league,  the  league  cannot  last  very  long.  It  is  bound 
to  fall  to  pieces. 

Now  let  us  consider  a  little  what  the  league  at  work  will 
actually  consist  of.  It  will  consist,  not  of  heavenly  beings, 
seraphim,  cherubim,  saints,  and  high  philosophers  removed 
from  the  weakness  of  common  beings;  it  will  consist  of  per- 
sons very  like  you  and  me,  subject  to  our  failings,  our  weak- 
nesses, and  our  prejudices.  Half  of  the  members  of  the  league, 
when  they  assemble  in  the  morning,  will  be  wondering  whether 
or  not  they  can  digest  their  breakfast  properly.  More  than  half 
of  them  will  be  open  to  flattery  or  to  threats,  and  a  great  deal 
more  than  half  of  them  will  have  axes  to  grind. 

The  existence  of  the  league  will  not  change  human  nature, 
and  there  will  be  precisely  as  much  human  nature  within  the 

1  By  Arnold  Bennett,  New  York  Times  Current  History,  p.  355.  Au- 
gust, 19 18. 


A    LEAGUE    OF    NATIONS  241 

meetings  of  the  league  as  there  will  "be  outside  those  meet- 
ings. The  meetings  will  be  remarkably  like  other  meetings 
of  committees  and  councils. 

It  followf,  therefore,  that  important  and  influential  nego- 
tiations will  go  on  informally  between  sundry  groups  of  the 
league  and  quite  apart  from  the  formal  meetings,  and  that  a 
large  proportion  of  the  members  will  attend  the  meetings  with 
their  minds  already  made  up  on  points  on  which  their  minds  are 
theoretically  supposed  to  be  quite  open.  In  other  words,  the 
real,  effective  proceedings  of  the  league  will  not,  after  all,  be 
quite  so  public  as  we  in  our  innocence  may  have  imagined. 
There  will  be  an  appreciable  amount  of  what  we  call  lobbying; 
that  is,  members  and  groups  of  members  will  foregather  in 
private  and  A  will  say  to  B,  "Will  you  vote  for  my  project?" 
and  B  will  reply  to  A,  "Yes,  I  will  vote  for  your  project,  if  you 
will  vote  for  mine,"  and  so  on  in  increasing  degrees  of  compli- 
cation. 

Well,  how  will  the  nations  of  the  world  agree  to  constitute 
the  personnel  of  the  league?  The  principle  adopted  at  the 
old  Hague  Conferences  was  beautifully  simple.  Forty-four 
states  were  represented,  and  the  principle  was  one  nation,  one 
vote.  The  smaller  nations  insisted  upon  this  principle  as 
the  price  of  their  adhesion.  Their  argument  was  that,  as  each 
nation  was  sovereign  and  independent,  all  nations  were  equal 
and  must  be  equally  represented.  It  was  a  charming  principle 
and  might  conceivably  work  well  on  the  planet  Mars,  but  it 
could  never  work  well  on  earth,  because  it  was  so  absurdly  con- 
trary to  all  earthly  notions  of  common  sense. 

Eight  great  powers  of  the  world — Great  Britain,  France,  the 
United  States,  Italy,  Japan,  Russia,  Germany,  and  Austria-Hun- 
gary— comprise  about  three-quarters  of  the  total  population  of 
the  world,  and  under  the  one-nation-one-vote  scheme  they  had 
less  than  one-fifth  of  the  voting  power.  Luxemburg  and  Den- 
mark, with  a  combined  population  less  than  half  the  population 
of  London,  could  swamp  the  vote  of  the  Entire  British  Empire 
with  its  area  of  13,000,000  square  miles  and  its  population  of 
over  400,000,000  souls.  The  thing  would  obviously  be  ridiculous 
in  any  plan  for  a  truly  practical  and  workable  league. 

The   only  simple   alternative   seems   to   be   representation 
on  the  basis  of  population.     Democracy  is  the  politics  of  the 


242  SELECTED    ARTICLES 

future,  and  this  would  be  a  democratic  alternative.  It  would, 
however,  mean  that,  if  Luxemburg  had  one  representative, 
Britain  would  have  some  1,700  representatives,  which  is  almost 
as  ridiculous  as  the  one-nation-one-vote  scheme.  The  person- 
nel of  the  league  must  be  kept  down  to  a  reasonable  size,  hence 
either  the  smallest  states  could  not  be  represented  at  all,  or 
several  of  them  would  have  to  combine  together  to  send  a  single 
representative. 

But  the  smaller  nations  are  not  of  urgent  importance.  The 
league  is  to  be  chiefly  concerned  with  the  prevention  of  war. 
The  smaller  nations  would  never  make  war,  only  the  great 
powers  could  make  war,  and  it  is  the  representation  of  the  great 
powers  that  matters  in  the  constitution  of  the  league.  Hence  let 
us  glance  at  a  list  of  the  great  powers,  adding  Spain  to  them,  if 
you  like,  as  Spain  did  make  war  not  such  a  long  time  ago,  and 
see  if  there  is  anything  curious  about  it. 

There  is  just  this  that  is  curious  about  it,  namely,  that 
two  groups  dominate  it,  an  Anglo-Saxon  group  and  a  Teu- 
tonic group.  In  mentioning  a  Teutonic  group  at  all  I  am, 
of  course,  assuming  that  the  war  is  over  and  the  German 
militarists  smashed.  Outside  these  two  groups  we  observe 
Russia,  with  a  population  so  gigantic  that  it  could  look  after 
itself  in  the  league,  and  Spain,  which  would  itself  be  the  head 
of  an  important  group  comprising  Spanish  South  America, 
and  Japan,  which  is  Oriental  and  incalculable.  France  and 
Italy  are  left  out  in  the  cold.  They  would  probably  never 
combine  together,  and,  even  if  they  did,  their  combined  forces 
would  not  equal  that  of  Germany  alone. 

The  idea  of  a  league  of  nations  has  had  some  success  in 
France,  but  only  very  modified  success.  Do  you  wonder  why? 
France,  like  Italy,  may  or  may  not  have  consciously  realized  the 
reason  for  her  coldness  toward  the  idea  of  a  league,  but  the 
reason  is  this:  On  a  population  basis  of  representation  France 
would  be  simply  nowhere  in  the  league;  she  would  be  a  trifle 
amid  tremendous  groups. 

There  is  no  suggestion  for  anything  fco  silly  as  the  ol'd 
balance  of  power  in  what  I  am  saying,  but  there  emphatically 
is  the  suggestion  of  the  inevitable  drawing  together  of  nations 
allied  alike  by  race  or  language,  or  by  both.  Undoubtedly  lobbying 
would  occur  within  the  great  groups,  and  bargaining  would  go 


A    LEAGUE    OF    NATIONS  243 

on,  as  to  which  no  hint  would  ever  appear  in  the  official  pro- 
ceedings of  the  league.  France,  like  Italy,  naturally  fears  this, 
and  on  a  population  basis  of  representation  could  do  almost 
nothing  to  counter  any  movements  which  she  might  imagine 
to  be  against  her  interests. 

France  counts  far  more  than  her  population  in  the  progress 
of  the  world.  She  is  the  centre  of  civilization,  the  historic 
nursery  of  ideas,  the  admired  heroine  of  the  earth,  and  a  league 
of  nations  without  her  whole-souled  co-operation  is  unthinkable; 
hence  her  fears  must  be  dissipated,  they  must  have  no  ground  to 
stand  on  and  no  air  to  breathe. 

How  can  her  fears  be  dissipated?  They  can  only  be  dis- 
sipated by  giving  her  appreciably  larger  representation  in  the 
league  than  she  is  strictly  entitled  to  on  a  basis  of  population; 
the  same  in  less  degree  with  Italy. 

I  am  fully  aware  that  my  proposal  is  a  very  delicate  one, 
and  will  arouse  many  objections;  nevertheless  I  regard  the 
proposal  as  the  sine  qua  non  of  a  successful  league  of  nations. 
Let  this  proposal  be  made,  and  the  idea  of  the  league  of  na- 
tions will  instantly  jump  forward.  The  proposal  involves  diffi- 
culties, but  these  difficulties  must  be  met.  It  involves  sacrifices, 
but  greater  sacrifices  than  these  will  have  to  be  made  if  a  league 
of  nations  is  to  be  and  is  to  work. 


WILL  DEMOCRACY  MAKE  THE  WORLD  SAFE?  1 

During  the  past  century  the  great  democracies  have  been 
making  war,  threatening  war,  and  preparing  for  war,  much  of 
me  time  against  each  other.  Their  history  shows  clearly  enough 
mat  if  their  neighbors  had  also  been  democratic  this  change 
alone  would  not  have  prevented  wars.  Nor  is  the  outlook  for 
the  future  encouraging.  Democratic  nations  are  still  willing  to 
fight  to  defend  their  national  interests  and  policies ;  they  de- 
mand their  due  share  of  over-sea  trade,  concessions  and  col- 
onies— if  they  are  a  commercial  or  expansionist  people — no  less 
insistently  because  they  are  democratic.  But  the  interests  and 
policies  of  one  nation  conflict  with  those  of  another;  what  one 

1  By  George  H.  Blakeslee.  In  the  Proceedings  of  the  American  Anti- 
quarian Society,  at  the  annual  meeting  held  in  Worcester,  Mass.,  October 
7,    1917.  * 


244  SELECTED   ARTICLES 

democracy  regards  as  a  due  share  of  over-sea  trade,  concessions, 
and  colonies  is  an  undue  share  to  its  rival.  Each  democracy 
becomes  an  excited  partisan  of  its  own  view,  ready  to  back  it  by 
force  of  arms;  and  the  natural  result  is,  as  it  always  has  been, 
wars  and  rumors  of  war.  There  are  enough  conflicts  in  na- 
tional policies  today  to  lead  to  a  dozen  future  conflicts,  even  if 
all  the  world  should  be  democratic.  There  is  Japan's  insistence 
upon  controlling  China;  our  own  Monroe  Doctrine,  when  inter- 
preted in  a  domineering  or  selfish  spirit;  England's  Persian  Gulf 
Policy;  the  anti-oriental  policy  of  the  United  States  and  the 
British  self-governing  colonies;  and  the  expansionist  policy  of 
all  of  the  Balkan  states.  Unless  present  conditions  are  changed, 
the  democratic  nations  of  the  world,  with  their  conflicting  in- 
terests, could  not  maintain  world  peace,  for  the  next  century, 
even  if  they  wished  to  maintain  it.  History,  present  conditions, 
and  the  logic  of  the  situation  show  that  democracy  alone  will 
never  make  the  world  safe. 

In  fact,  democracy  alone, — at  least  our  familiar  nationalistic 
democracy,  for  we  need  not  consider  the  new  socialistic  Bol- 
shevism— however  much  we  value  it  and  however  fiercely  we  in- 
tend to  fight  for  it,  must  be  admitted  to  have  exerted,  up  to  the 
present  time,  a  relatively  small  influence  in  hastening  interna- 
tional peace.  Whatever  advance  has  been  made  in  limiting  the 
area  of  war  has  thus  far  in  history  been  accomplished  almost 
solely  by  another  means, — by  uniting  existing,  independent  po- 
litical units  into  some  larger  group,  thus  bringing  peace  within 
continually  widening  areas.  The  independent  primitive  families 
became  tribes;  the  tribes,  city  states;  and  the  city  states,  the 
Roman  Empire.  After  the  fall  of  Rome,  the  practically  inde- 
pendent feudal  castles  gradually  became  feudal  duchies;  the 
duchies,  kingdoms;  and  finally  the  kingdoms,  the  nations  and 
the  empires  of  today.  Each  stage  has  brought  peace  to  the  pre- 
viously warring  units  after  they  have  once  been  united  in  the 
larger  organization. 

This  process  has  been  working  out  in  a  striking  way  in  the 
recent  past.  Not  a  long  time  ago,  as  we  count  time  in  history, 
Scotland  and  England  were  bitter  enemies:  Scotland,  Celtic, 
and  Presbyterian;  England,  Anglo-Saxon,  and  Episcopal.  For 
centuries  their  unending  border  warfare  lasted  on, — until  finally 
without  conquest  these  old  enemies  were  united,  and  co-operated 


A    LEAGUE    OF    NATIONS  245 

as  parts  of  the  larger  British  nation.  The  States  of  Germany 
continually  fought  one  another  until  they  formed  a  union,  which 
they  later  cemented  by  mutual  consent  into  the  present  German 
Empire.  However  fiercely  the  Imperial  Government  may  now 
attack  other  nations,  there  is  peace-  between  the  self-governing 
states  which  compose  this  new  federated  unit.  A  similar  de- 
velopment took  place  in  Italy.  Bitterly  and  constantly  the  little 
Italian  city  states  contended  against  each  other;  but  they  all 
finally  united,  in  large  part  by  voluntary  action,  to  form  the 
modern  kingdom  of  Italy,  and  thus  brought  peace  and  security 
to  Venice,  Florence,  Genoa,  Milan,  and  all  their  warring  neigh- 
bors within  the  bounds  of  the  Italian  peninsula.    . 

The  necessity  of  some  kind  of  union  among  independent 
states,  even  democratic  states,  if  they  are  to  establish  permanent 
peace,  is  shown  with  especial  clearness  by  our  own  early  history. 
Soon  after  the  coercive  hand  of  the  Revolutionary  War  was  re- 
laxed, and  our  thirteen  commonwealths  became  virtually  inde- 
pendent of  each  other,  it  took  them  only  a  short  half  dozen  years 
— though  they  were  non-militaristic  and  intensely  democratic — 
to  develop  the  same  kind  of  disputes  and  the  same  spirit  of 
mutual  suspicion  which  we  know  too  well  in  Europe.  New  York 
State  ordered  its  troops  to  the  Vermont  border  to  enforce  its 
boundary  claims,  while  partisans  burned  houses  and  murdered 
farmers  in  this  contested  territory.  Connecticut  showed  a  gen- 
uine war  spirit  against  Pennsylvania  because  of  the  inhuman 
treatment  which  the  Pennsylvania  military  authorities  inflicted 
upon  the  Connecticut  settlers  in  the  Wyoming  Valley.  Tariff 
squabbles  of  much  bitterness  arose  between  New  Jersey  and 
Connecticut,  on  the  one  hand,  and  New  York  on  the  other.  Our 
democracies  were  rapidly  going  the  way  of  the  military  au- 
tocracies of  the  old  world;  within  these  few  years  five  of  them 
went  dangerously  far  on  the  road  which  led  to  inter-state  war. 
But  they  realized  their  danger,  called  an  inter-state  convention 
and,  after  a  long  discussion,  adopted  the  present  federal  con- 
stitution, which  the  convention  had  drawn  up.  It  was  not  their 
democracy  but  their  federation  which  saved  them. 

If  the  world's  democracies  are  to  keep  the  peace,  they  too 
must  follow  this  historic  process  and  form  some  greater  political 
organization;  without  relinquishing  their  sovereignty  they  must 
league    themselves    together    to    achieve    certain    common    pur- 


246  SELECTED    ARTICLES 

poses.  Such  a  union  of  sovereign  or  partly  sovereign  states, 
that  is,  a  federation,  is  an  American  conception.  Forty  years 
ago  John  Fiske  pointed  out  that  the  idea  of  federation  was 
America's  greatest  single  contribution  to  civilization,  and  de- 
clared that  it  was  "one  of  the  most  important  in  the  history  of 
mankind."  Then  he  added,  prophetically,  "the  principle  of  fed- 
eration .  .  .  broadly  stated  contains  within  itself  the  seeds  of 
permanent  peace  between  nations."  It  is  by  federation  that  our 
own  self-governing,  partly  sovereign,  democratic  states — differ- 
ing in  size,  population,  laws,  customs,  interests,  and  each  with  its 
local  pride — succeed  in  maintaining  peace  and  harmony  through- 
out our  continental-wide  areas.  It  is  by  federation  that  the 
British  Commonwealths,  which  are  virtually  independent,  mak- 
ing even  their  own  tariffs,  their  own  immigration  laws,  and 
their  own  tests  of  citizenship,  find  security  and  the  means  of 
settling  in  common,  their  common  problems. 

The  nations  of  the  world  must  adopt  this  same  principle.  It 
is  not  enough  that  they  become  democratic;  they  must  also  fed- 
erate into  a  great  league  of  peace  to  protect  each  other  from 
aggression  and  to  provide  means  for  settling  international  dis- 
putes, and  agencies  for  composing  clashes  of  policy  and  of  in- 
terest. The  necessity  of  international  organization  has  fre- 
quently been  pointed  out  by  the  President,  and  at  no  time  more 
earnestly  than  in  his  notable  war  message,  when  he  held  up  as 
one  of  the  aims  of  the  United  States  the  creation  "of  such  a 
concert  of  free  peoples  as  shall  bring  peace  and  security  to  all 
nations  and  make  the  world  itself  free." 

But  if  the  final  and  essential  factor  in  securing  permanent 
peace  is  a  concert  or  league  of  nations,  why  is  it  considered 
necessary  to  have  all  of  the  peoples  in  the  league  self-governing 
or  democratic?  ,  Chiefly  for  the  reason  that  a  thoroughly  mil- 
itarized autocracy  by  its  very  nature  can  not  loyally  enter  into  a 
league  of  democracies  which  aims  to  substitute  law,  reason,  and 
conciliation  for  military  force,  and  to  reduce  national  armaments 
to  their  lowest  limits  necessary  for  the  fulfillment  of  the  guar- 
antees of  the  league.  It  is  militarism  more  than  autocracy  which 
prevents  cordial  co-operation.  An  autocracy  which  is  not  mil- 
itaristic would  not  greatly  endanger  the  world's  peace;  auto- 
cratic China,  during  most  of  the  past  century  threatened  no 
country.    It  is  the  controlling  military  caste  and  the  controlling 


A    LEAGUE    OF    NATIONS  247 

military  principle  in  a  great  state,  whatever  its  form  of  govern- 
ment, which  stand  in  the  way  of  membership  in  a  peaceful 
democratic  league.  For  militarism,  necessarily,  stands  for 
force  and  might — the  law  of  the  jungle — in  foreign  relations, 
and,  within  its  own  state,  for  the  supremacy  of  the  military  over 
the  civilian  element.  A  state  essentially  militarized  thus  repre- 
sents principles  which  are  directly  opposed  to  those  upon  which 
a  concert  or  league  of  free  nations  would  be  built. 

This  military  attitude  is  well  shown  by  the  action  of  the  Ger- 
man Government  during  the  past  few  decades.  It  has  consist- 
ently opposed  the  various  suggestions  which  have  been  made 
looking  towards  international  limitations  of  armament.  Before 
the  Hague  Congress  of  1907,  its  leaders  stated  that  it  would  not 
even  send  delegates  to  the  Hague,  if  the  subject  of  the  reduc- 
tion of  armament  was  to  be  so  much  as  mentioned.  It  is  Ger- 
many which  has  been  the  greatest  obstacle  to  the  Hague  idea, 
as  opposed  to  the  "blood  and  iron"  idea.  This  fact  was  rec- 
ognized in  the  two  conferences  of  1899  and  1907;  and  has  been 
further  illustrated  by  Germany's  attitude  towards  the  calling 
of  a  third  Conference.  Dr  Henry  Van  Dyke  has  recently 
shown  that  all  of  his  efforts  as  United  States  Minister  at  the 
Hague  to  forward  the  assembling  of  a  third  Conference  were 
blocked  by  Germany.  This  opposition  is  only  to  be  expected;  a 
government  under  military  control  wishes  to  rely  upon  military 
force — or  the  fear  of  it — to  back  up  its  policy  in  dealing  with 
other  nations. 

But  the  mass  of  the  people  in  every  great  European  State, 
whether  its  government  is  under  military  control  or  not,  desire 
peace  as  a  permament  basis  of  international  relations,  and  do  not 
believe  in  war  as  a  good  in  itself  or  as  a  policy  of  calculated 
aggression.  They  are,  however,  ready  to  fight,  if  necessary,  to 
defend  themselves  as  well  as  their  national  rights,  interests,  and 
policies.  The  majority  even  of  the  German  people  have  desired 
to  keep  the  peace :  this  is  clear  from  such  evidence  as  the  secret 
report  on  public  opinion  in  Germany  prepared  by  the  French 
Embassy  in  Berlin  in  1913,  and  published  in  the  French  Govern- 
ment Yellow  Book  in  1914;  by  the  testimony  of  Baron  Beyens, 
Belgian  Minister  to  Berlin  for  a  number  of  years  before  the 
war;  and  by  the  observations  of  Georges  Bourdon,  the  corre- 
spondent of  the  Paris  Figaro,  who  made  a  study  of  German 


248  SELECTED    ARTICLES 

sentiment  in  1913.  But  the  majority  of  the  German  people  did 
not  control  their  government.  Even  had  they  controlled  it  to 
the  extent  to  which  the  people  of  Great  Britain,  France,  and 
Italy  control  theirs,  there  would  have  been  likelihood  of  war  had 
no  international  machinery  been  devised  for  discussing  and  set- 
tling the  clashes  of  policy  between  Germany  and  other  Powers, 
and  thus  allaying  international  suspicion  and  fear,  and  obviating 
the  resulting  rival  military  preparedness. 

What  then  must  be  done  to  make  the  world  safe?  First,  the 
German  people  should  obtain  control  of  their  Imperial  govern- 
ment. This  change  would  naturally  do  away  with  the  insistence, 
by  Germany,  of  maintaining  military  force  as  the  sole  arbiter  in 
international  affairs.  Secondly,  the  treaty  of  peace  at  the  close 
of  the  present  war  should  be  just;  so  eminently  just  to  all 
peoples  that  the  German  democracy  will  be  willing  to  accept  it 
as  a  somewhat  permanent  international  settlement,  and  join  with 
the  other  democracies  in  safe-guarding  it.  In  such  a  settlement, 
"punitive  damages,  the  dismemberment  of  Empires,  and  ex- 
clusive economic  leagues,"  as  President  Wilson  has  well  pointed 
out,  must  have  no  place.  Thirdly,  a  league  or  concert  should  be 
formed  of  the  self-governing  peoples,  the  democracies  of  the 
world,  in  order  to  maintain  international  security,  justice,  and 
peace. 

History  proves,  however,  that  democracies — at  least  national- 
istic democracies — unless  leagued  together,  and  thus  restrained 
by  the  ties  which  bind  them  to  their  fellow  members,  will  in  the 
future  as  in  the  past,  be  carried  away,  at  times,  by  the  militaristic 
and  imperialistic  minorities,  which  exist  in  some  degree  in  every 
state — even  in  our  own — and  will  become  aggressive  and  un- 
scrupulous ;  unless  they  devise  methods,  with  force  behind  them, 
for  adjusting  their  conflicting  claims,  interests,  and  policies,  they 
will  occasionally,  as  has  happened  so  often  before, — even  when 
they  desire  to  maintain  peace — drift  helplessly  into  war,  each 
fighting  in  defense  of  what  it  regards  as  its  just  rights. 

The  fact  that  democracies  bring  peace  only  when  they  are 
leagued  or  federated  is  of  the  greatest  practical  importance  to 
the  United  States,  and  should  determine  our  future  interna- 
tional policy.  The  necessity  of  having  the  nations  of  the  world 
become  democracies  has  been  emphasized  by  the  President;  but 
the  necessity  of  grouping  these  democracies  into  a  concert  or 


A    LEAGUE    OF    NATIONS  249 

league  to  maintain  peace,  is  not  so  generally  appreciated.  Yet 
the  President — backed  by  such  men  as  Ex-President  Taft — has 
for  the  past  two  years  repeatedly  insisted  that  to  obtain  secure 
peace  the  democracies  must  form  a  league  of  nations,  "a  concert 
of  free  peoples,"  "a  partnership  of  democratic  nations." 

It  is  only  by  supporting  the  President  in  his  effort  to  lead 
our  own  and  the  other  free  peoples — including  a  freed  and  self- 
governing  Germany — into  a  definite  concert  of  states,  that  we 
may,  in  the  truest  sense,  win  the  war ;  that  we  may  secure  a  rea- 
sonable promise  of  obtaining  a  permanent  international  peace 
and  of  becoming  a  non-militaristic  world.  If  we  should  not 
succeed  in  forming  such  a  league,  no  matter  how  badly  our 
armies  may  defeat  the  German  troops,  no  matter  how  thor- 
oughly we  may  democratize  the  German  state,  we  shall  fail  to 
achieve  fully  our  great  ultimate  purpose  in  the  war.  For  democ- 
racy alone  will  never  make  the  world  safe. 


A  LEAGUE  OF  NATIONS  * 

President  Wilson's  New  York  address  is  remarkable  for  its 
emphasis  of  a  league  of  nations  as  the  "indispensable  instru- 
mentality" by  which  a  just  and  permanent  peace  can  be  guar- 
anteed. The  ground  plan  of  such  a  league  should  be  discussed 
and  agreed  upon  by  the  people  of  every  nation.  The  following 
considerations  appear  pertinent  and  valuable: 

1.  The  best  model  for  a  league  of  nations  is  the  American 
Union.  Under  our  Constitution  a  group  of  "free  and  indepen- 
dent states,"  thirteen  at  first,  now  forty-eight,  have  kept  the 
peace  with  one  another  a  hundred  and  thirty  years  with  the 
exception  of  the  Civil  War.  That  war  was  not  attributed  to 
any  defect  in  our  federal  system.  No  political  arrangement 
that  human  intelligence  can  devise  will  be  an  absolute  guarantee 
against  war. 

2.  There  is  free  trade  throughout  our  nation.  No  state  can 
establish  commercial  barriers  or  secure  selfish  economic  ad- 
vantages. Only  Congress  can  regulate  commerce  between  the 
states  and  with  foreign  countries. 

1  By  Henry  W.  Pinkham.  Public,  p.   1338.  October  26,   19 18. 


250  SELECTED    ARTICLES 

3.  Our  Constitution  gives  the  general  government  no  au- 
thority to  coerce  a  state,  but  delinquent  individuals  within  the 
states  may  be  coerced.  Said  Oliver  Ellsworth,  one  of  the  men 
that  framed  the  Constitution :  "The  Constitution  does  not  at- 
tempt to  coerce  sovereign  bodies,  states.  If  we  should  attempt 
to  execute  the  laws  of  the  Union  by  sending  an  armed  force 
against  a  delinquent  state,  it  would  involve  the  good  and  the 
bad,  the  innocent  and  the  guilty,  in  the  same  calamity."  The 
distinction  between  using  force  against  individuals,  which  is  a 
proper  police  function,  and  using  force  against  collectivities, 
which  is  war,  was  clearly  perceived  by  our  fathers.  They  acted 
on  the  principle  expressed  in  Burke's  famous  dictum :  "I  do  not 
know  how  to  draw  up  an  indictment  against  a  whole  people." 
This  distinction  is  supremely  important  in  the  solution  of  the 
problem  of  world  peace. 

4.  Our  Constitution  provides  a  Supreme  Court  to  pass  upon 
disputes  between  the  states,  but  it  makes  no  provision  of  force 
to  compel  a  state  to  accept  the  Court's  decision,  but  depends 
solely  on  public  opinion  as  a  sanction. 

5.  Thus  our  Union  is  a  league  of  peace  and  not  a  "league  to 
enforce  peace."  Our  federal  army  and  navy  have  never  been 
thought  of  as  instruments  for  possible  use  in  preventing  New 
York  from  making  war  on  Pennsylvania,  or  for  intervention  in 
case  Massachusetts  should  attempt  to  annex  Rhode  Island.  An 
armed  conflict  between  states  or  groups  of  states  in  our  Union 
is  well  nigh  unthinkable  and  is  not  a  concern  of  practical  states- 
manship. It  is  only  because  we  have  relations  with  foreign  na- 
tions that  an  armament  is  deemed  necessary  by  any  one.  But  in 
a  world  federation  there  will  be  no  foreign  nations  in  the  pres- 
ent sense,  that  is,  no  unlimited  sovereignties,  with  the  right  to 
make  war.  Hence  there  need  be  no  armies  and  navies,  since 
there  is  but  little  reason  to  fear  an  invasion  from  Mars.  Dis- 
armanent,  universal  and  complete,  is  the  natural  accompani- 
ment of  the  organization  of  a  world  league. 


A    LEAGUE    OF    NATIONS  251 


CAN    MAN    ABOLISH  WAR?1 

Unless  the  league  of  nations  is  prepared  to  hold  down  by 
force,  for  an  indefinite  period,  Germany,  Austria,  Turkey,  and 
Bulgaria,  the  peace  of  the  world  would  always  be  at  the  mercy 
of  these  dissatisfied  countries.  I  can  perfectly  understand  the 
point  of  view  of  an  English  militarist  who  argues  that  there  is 
not  room  in  the  world  for  two  great  empires,  and  that  Ger- 
many must  have  that  idea  knocked  out  of  her  head  once  for  all. 
This  is  a  sane  and  logical  point  of  view.  There  is  no  doubt  that 
if  the  philosophy  of  Nietzsche  is  true,  and  if  morals  in  politics 
are  an  affectation,  we  should  exert  all  our  power,  now  that  we 
have  got  the  world  on  our  side,  to  dismember  the  German  Em- 
pire, to  enfeeble  her  people,  and  to  bar  her  progress  at  every 
point  of  the  compass.  But  this  is  a  point  of  view  which  presup- 
poses the  eternity  of  the  sword.  It  cannot  possibly  present  itself 
to  those  who  hate  war  as  Kant  hated  it,  and  Goethe,  and  Fichte, 
and  Hegel.  It  cannot  for  a  moment  be  entertained  by  any  man 
who  believes  in  the  religious  progress  of  humanity.  It  is  a  no- 
tion, whatever  else  may  be  its  implications,  which  makes  a  scrap 
of  paper  of  the  Gospel  of  Christ.. 

But  how  can  we  expect  Germany  and  Austria  and  Turkey 
and  Bulgaria  to  enter  our  league  of  nations  if  their  entrance  is 
to  be  made  in  the  rags  of  beggary  with  the  mark  of  slaves  upon 
their  brows?  We  can  force  them  in  such  a  condition  to  enter, 
but  with  what  hope  of  their  co-operation  in  the  great  work  of 
world  civilization?  Surely  we  must  confess  that  a  league  of 
nations  so  composed  would  break  asunder  within  measurable 
time.  The  conspiracies  of  the  malcontents  might  fail;  their 
mutinies  might  be  beaten  by  the  police  force  of  the  other  na- 
tions; their  revolts  might  be  feeble  and  short-lived;  but  such 
revolts  would  do  something  more  than  disturb  the  armed  peace 
of  the  world — they  would  introduce  dangerous  controversies  into 
the  league. 

It  seems  evident,  I  think,  that  if  this  league  of  nations  is  to 
be  formed,  and  if  from  this  league  which,  clearly,  is  only  a  be- 
ginning, the  nations  are,  in  the  words  of  the  late  Lord  Salisbury, 

i  By  Harold   Begbie.   North  American   Review,  p.   891.      June,    1918. 


252  SELECTED    ARTICLES 

to  be  "welded  in  some  international  constitution,"  which  he 
foresaw  to  be  the  one  eventual  security  against  war,  it  is,  above 
all  other  things,  necessary  that  good  will  should  inspire  the 
whole  body  of  nations  forming  that  league. 

International  federation,  which  we  are  now  considering,  is 
manifestly  the  greatest  political  ideal  which  presents  itself  to 
good  men  in  every  country  under  the  sun.  If  there  could  be  in 
the  world  an  international  court  of  justice  to  which  every  dis- 
pute between  the  federated  nations  would  automatically  be  re- 
ferred, and  if  behind  this  international  court  of  justice  there 
could  be  a  force  of  the  federated  nations  to  see  that  its  judg- 
ments were  honored,  then  surely  we  might  hope  with  Lord 
Salisbury  for  "a  long  spell  of  unfettered  and  prosperous  trade 
and  continued  peace." 

But  as  soon  as  we  begin  to  particularize,  the  obstacles  to  such 
an  international  constitution  appear  almost  insurmountable.  For 
example,  let  us  suppose  that  France  claimed  from  us  the  restitu- 
tion of  the  Channel  Islands  and  the  court  decided  that  we  should 
surrender  them.  In  this  case,  despite  all  the  difficulties,  we 
might  bow  with  a  good  grace  to  the  judgment  of  the  court. 
But  suppose  that  India  appealed  to  the  Court  for  self-govern- 
ment, and  was  followed  by  Egypt,  and  then  that  Spain  came  into 
court  against  us,  claiming  Gibraltar  and  Malta,  would  it  be  easy 
for  us  to  submit?  No  one  dreams  of  setting  up  an  interna- 
tional constitution  which  would  merely  preserve  the  status  quo; 
it  is  obvious  that  this  international  constitution  must  be  as 
adaptable  and  progressive  as  a  national  constitution ;  that  it  must 
be,  indeed,  the  supreme  judge  of  every  decade  of  world  politics. 
Are  we,  then,  quite  certain  that  we  could  with  safety  commit 
our  national  destinies  into  the  hands  of  such  a  constitution? 
Might  not  the  peace  of  the  world  be  too  high  a  price  to  pay  for 
loss  of  control  of  our  own  British  destiny? 

The  Englishmen,  of  all  nationalities,  is  the  freest,  and  has  the 
notion  of  freedom  in  his  very  blood.  The  French  historian,  M. 
Seignobus,  has  paid  us  this  compliment :  "The  English  people 
developed  the  political  mechanism  of  modern  Europe,  constitu- 
tional monarchy,  parliamentary  government,  and  safeguards  for 
personal  liberty.  The  other  nations  have  only  imitated  them." 
And  Professor  Ramsay  Muir,  in  Nationalism  and  International- 
ism, shows  that  England,  where  equal  law  was  established  by 


A    LEAGUE    OF    NATIONS  253 

the  Norman  and  Angevin  kings,  was  "the  first  European  nation 
to  achieve  full  consciousness  of  her  nationhood."  England, 
then,  is  of  all  countries  the  least  unlikely  to  resent  the  decisions 
of  law.  She  has  none  of  the  irritable  pride  of  the  parvenu;  she 
is  old  in  her  hatred  of  militarism ;  she  is  patient,  peace-loving, 
law-abiding.  But  who  can  think  of  this  England  allowing  an 
international  court  of  justice  to  decide  for  her  whether  India 
should  be  left  to  a  bloody  contest  between  Mussulmans  and 
Hindus,  and  whether  her  stupendous  work  in  Egypt  should  be 
exposed  to  the  destruction  of  desert  tribes?  And  if  England 
would  not  easily  submit  to  such  jurisdiction,  how  can  we  expect 
submission  from  those  more  arrogant  nations  in  whose  blood  is 
the  pride  of  the  sword  and  in  whose  history  is  no  long  tradi- 
tion of  the  law? 

If  we  are  honest  with  ourselves,  must  we  not  acknowledge 
that  there  is  some  indestructible  force  in  nationalism  which  in- 
sists upon  making  its  own  way  across  the  centuries,  and  which 
cannot  trust  itself  to  the  interference  of  others?  Is  it  not  a 
truth  of  every  educated  Englishman's  existence  that,  like  Mil- 
ton, "content  with  these  British  islands  as  my  world,"  he  feels 
the  destiny  of  this  country  to  be  something  immeasurably  greater 
and  infinitely  more  precious  than  anything  else  in  politics  of 
the  world?  And  is  it  to  be  expected  of  other  nations  that  they 
should  submit  to  a  foreign  decision  matters  which  they  feel  to 
be  vital  to  their  destinies — as  great  and  as  precious  to  them  as 
the  destiny  of  his  country  to  be  something  immeasurably  greater 
such  as  disputes  touching  the  interpretation  of  international  law, 
we  can  imagine  any  nation  submitting  to  a  tribunal  of  the 
peoples  but  not  matters  which  concern  their  destiny. 

And  yet  it  is  through  this  very  pressure  of  nationalism  that 
the  world  is  most  likely  to  reach  the  ideal  goal  of  international 
federation.  Instead  of  finding,  as  so  many  pacifists  have  argued, 
that  nationalism  is  a  bar  to  internationalism,  we  shall  find,  I 
think,  that  by  no  other  road  is  internationalism  to  be  reached. 
But  we  shall  imperil  this  great  hope  if  we  insist  upon  proceed- 
ing with  President  Wilson's  suggestion  for  a  league  of  nations 
with  any  idea  in  our  minds  that  a  mechanical  solution  can  be 
found  for  national  rivalries.    Good  will  is  essential. 

Let  us  beware  of  pouring  the  new  wine  of  international  fra- 
ternity into  the  old  skins  of  national  hatreds.     These  dreadful 


254  SELECTED    ARTICLES 

hatreds,  history  teaches  us,  will  pass.  But  no  form  of  interna- 
tional machinery,  even  when  this  present  tempest  of  hatred  has 
passed,  can  guarantee  to  the  nations  of  the  earth  a  true  and  last- 
ing peace  until  the  spirit  which  animates  the  relations  of  states 
is  definitely  the  spirit  of  Good  Will. 


MAN  CANNOT  LIVE  TO  HIMSELF  ALONE, 
NOR  CAN  A  NATION  » 

There  was  a  time  when  neighboring  countries  were  as  remote 
from  each  other,  in  so  far  as  intercourse  and  communication  are 
concerned,  as  though  separated  by  an  ocean  or  a  continent.  That 
day  has  passed. 

No  longer  can  any  man  live  to  himself  alone,  nor  any  nation. 
The  world  has  become  a  unit.  Crop  failure  in  South  America  is 
felt  in  Europe.  A  panic  in  London  or  New  York  creates  finan- 
cial depression  throughout  the  world.  Industrial  difficulties  in 
any  one  country  have  their  influence  in  all  countries. 

Just  as  the  peace  and  prosperity  of  any  nation  depend  upon 
the  happiness  and  the  welfare  of  all  the  people  in  that  nation,  so 
the  peace  and  prosperity  of  the  world  are  dependent  upon  the 
happiness  and  welfare  of  all  the  nations  of  the  world.  And  no 
force  will  be  so  powerful  in  conserving  universal  peace  and  good 
will  after  the  war  is  over  as  the  spirit  of  Brotherhood  among 
men  and  nations. 

When  this  world  struggle  is  ended,  grave  questions  are  sure 
to  arise  in  the  internal  life  of  the  several  countries  involved  in  it. 

Some  one  has  said  that  the  present  war  is  only  a  curtain 
raiser  compared  to  the  conflicts  which  are  likely  to  follow  when 
the  period  of  reconstruction  is  reached. 

The  progress  of  events  in  Russia  during  the  past  months 
gives  some  indication  of  the  violent  differences  of  opinion  which 
may  assert  themselves  and  of  the  bitter  internal  dissensions 
which  too  often  attend  the  re-birth  of  a  nation. 

The  patriotism  of  men  of  all  classes  is  certain  to  be  severely 
tested  in  the  readjustments  which  must  follow  the  war. 

1  From  "Brotherhood  of  Men  and  Nations,"  by  John  D.  Rockefeller, 
Jr.  An  address  delivered  before  the  Civic  and  Commercial  Club  of  Denver, 
Colorado,  June  13,  iqi8. 


A    LEAGUE    OF    NATIONS  255 

During  the  period  of  reconstruction  the  one  force  to  be 
looked  to  for  the  prevention  of  possible  internal  wars  in  the 
various  nations — wars  which  if  they  came  would  be  far  bloodier 
and  more  heartrending  than  this  present  war,  because  between 
brothers — is  the  spirit  of  Brotherhood. 

If  that  spirit  shall  prevail — influencing  as  it  must  and  will 
those  who  are  conservative  in  their  views,  to  consider  the  vital 
questions  of  the  day  from  all  sides,  and  likewise  influencing 
those  who  are  radical  to  realize  that  time  is  a  great  force  in 
changing  most  things,  that  patience  must  be  called  into  play  and 
that  the  progress  which  is  slow  is  surer  than  that  which  is 
precipitate,  then  and  then  only  can  we  expect  this  critical  period 
to  be  lived  through,  and  the  momentous  questions  which  it  will 
bring  satisfactorily  adjusted,  without  further  bloodshed  and 
suffering. 


SUPPLEMENTARY    ARTICLES    FOR 
SECOND   EDITION 

LEAGUE  OF  NATIONS  TO  AVERT  INTER- 
NATIONAL   ANARCHY1 

I  wish  to  direct  attention  briefly  to  the  international  anarchy 
that  rioted  through  Europe  for  fifty  years  prior  to  this  war,  and 
which  caused  it,  and  the  international  anarchy  that  existed  among 
our  thirteen  original  States  during  the  period  intervening  be- 
tween the  close  of  the  Revolutionary  War  and  the  adoption  of 
the  Constitution,  and  was  wiped  out  by  the  institution  of  a 
League  of  Nations,  known  as  the  United  States  of  America. 

By  the  word  anarchy  I  mean  what  its  derivation  from  two 
Greek  words,  one  meaning  "without"  and  the  other  "government" 
implies:  A  state  of  lawlessness  of  political  disorder;  a  state 
of  lawless  confusion ;  a  condition  of  society  where  there  is  no 
law  or  supreme  power  and  the  absence  of  regulating  power  in 
any  sphere. 

For  fifty  years  or  more  prior  to  this  war  Europe  interna- 
tionally has  been  in  a  state  of  lawlessness  and  confusion  and 
political  disorder.  Its  nations  were  each  in  a  way  a  law  unto 
itself,  or  trying  to  be.  Each  was  controlled  in  its  actions  toward 
the  other  nations  solely  by  its  own  purposes  and  seeming  in- 
terests. Each  pursued  a  policy  of  irresponsible  individual  na- 
tionalism, as  distinguished  from  collective  nationalism  and  in- 
ternational concert.  There  was  an  absence  of  supreme  direct- 
ing and  restraining  control  of  the  purposes  and  interests  of  all. 
There  was  confusion  and  disorder  as  far  as  their  relations  with 
each  other  were  concerned. 

Many  of  their  leaders  and  reputed  statesmen  were  anarchists 
in  the  sense  that  they  were  promoters  and  creators  of  inter- 
national lawlessness  and  disorder.     For  instance,  Bismarck  was 

1  By  Samuel  J.  Graham,  Assistant  United  States  Attorney  General.  From 
the  New  York  Times,  January   12,    19 19. 


258  SELECTED    ARTICLES 

an  anarchist  in  that  he  had  no  regard  for  the  rights  or  the 
lives,  and  was  willing  at  any  time  to  take  the  property,  of  any 
neighboring  people,  and  deliberately  played  the  part  in  the 
three  wars  which  Germany  wantonly  waged  while  he  was  con- 
trolling her  policies. 

International  anarchy,  and  its  hand  maiden,  diplomacy,  con- 
sort with  neither  morals  nor  conscience.  It  represents  the  reign 
of  physical  force,  and  is  a  perpetual  struggle  for  mastery,  as 
is  the  balance  of  power  policy,  its  twin  brother.  The  power  that 
relies  on  the  sword  never  shares  or  limits  its  authority. 

This  international  anarchy  was  the  child  of  the  policy  of 
individual  nationalism,  which  controlled  the  life  of  Europe 
before  and  during  the  period  above  mentioned,  and  the  life 
of  the  thirteen  States,  as  stated,  prior  to  the  adoption  of  the 
Constitution.  It  produced  in  Europe  its  logical  result,  war. 
It  was  abandoned  in  time  by  our  thirteen  States  and  re- 
placed by  collective  nationalism  in  the  form  of  a  League 
of  Nations,  which  is  merely  a  combination  of  free  peoples,  a 
system  by  which  certain  phases  of  the  life  in  these  nations, 
where  their  common  interests  are  affected,  is  controlled  by  a 
central  authority  under  given  limitations  and  restraints,  upon 
the  principle  that  what  is  for  the  benefit  of  the  whole  is  good 
for  each  part. 

And  here  it  should  be  remembered  that  each  of  these  thirteen 
individual  States  was,  for  all  practical  purposes  at  the  time 
mentioned,  an  individual  nation  controlling  its  own  affairs,  and 
with  its  own  form  of  government.  It  was  by  resorting  to  this 
policy  of  collective  nationalism  through  an  unwritten  League 
of  Friendship  in  which  they  pooled  their  armies,  navies,  and 
resources,  that  the  United  States,  Japan,  and  the  Allies  and 
other  nations  fought  this  war  to  a  successful  finish.  They  had 
abandoned  to  a  very  large  extent  the  previously  existing  prin- 
ciple of  individual  nationalism  to  do  it. 

Diplomacy  A  "Flim-Flam" 

The  potent  instrument  of  individual  nationalism  in  this  inter- 
national anarchy  in  Europe  has  been  a  system  of  international 
deception,  trickery,  and  haggling  termed  diplomacy,  the  practices 
and  accomplishments  of  which  have  shown  it  to  be  but  chicanery 


A    LEAGUE    OF    NATIONS  259 

dressed  in  the  garb  of  unbridled  officialism  and  the  pomp  of 
power.  It  has  always  been  a  "back-stair"  business,  and  in  the 
language  of  the  street,  a  game  of  "flim-flam."  The  persons  who 
have  practiced  it  most  successfully  and  true  to  accepted  form 
have  shown  themselves,  to  put  it  plainly,  to  have  combined  either 
the  characteristics  of  the  gunman  and  the  "green  goods  man," 
as  in  the  case  of  Bismarck,  or  of  the  "confidence  man"  and  the 
"card  sharp,"  as  in  the  case  of  Metternich. 

Diplomacy  has  acted  on  the  principle  of  "do  your  neighbor 
or  he  will  do  you,"  and  "every  man  for  himself."  It  was  parent 
of  the  international  anarchy  which  stalked  through  Europe  in 
bloody  boots  prior  to  this  war,  which  has  just  filled  the  world 
with  horror  and  disgust.  Its  system  was  stealthy  and  secretive, 
even  to  its  own  people  its  acts  were  not  revealed,  and  too  often 
its  ignoble  methods  and  results  were  attired  in  some  high-sound- 
ing phrase  or  boast  to  hide  its  deformity. 

So  much  in  general.  Now,  to  be  more  particular,  I  wish  to 
point  out  how  individual  nationalism  in  Europe  by  creating  in- 
ternational anarchy  brought  on  war,  and  how  international  an- 
archy, born  of  the  same  policy,  among  the  thirteen  original 
States,  which  held  high  carnival  in  this  country  during  the 
period  from  the  close  of  the  Revolution  to  the  adoption  of  the 
Constitution,  was  arrested  and  put  out  of  business  and  peace 
established  by  these  States  abandoning  the  policy  of  individual 
nationalism,  and  adopting  the  policy  of  collective  nationalism,  or 
international  concert,  as  embodied  in  the  Constitution  of  the 
United  States,  the  first  great  League  of  Free  Peoples,  and  which 
established  peace  for  each  and  all  of  them. 

International  Anarchy 

The  history  of  Europe  for  sixty  years  prior  to  the  late  war, 
and  that  of  the  States  for  five  years  prior  to  the  adoption  of 
the  Constitution,  each  present  pictures  of  international  anarchy 
produced  by  individual  nationalism.  The  events  in  each  case 
can  only  be  touched  upon  very  briefly  in  this  communication. 

Beginning  with  the  year  1850  and  down  to  August,  1914, 
when  this  war  began,  each  State  in  Europe  was  operating  as  an 
individual  nationality,  with  relations  more  or  less  intimate  with 
other  individual  nationalities.     There  was  no  general  co-opera- 


260  SELECTED    ARTICLES 

tion  among  them  for  the  common  good.  Each  was  seeking  its 
own  interests,  preparing  for  either  offensive  or  defensive  war. 
Each  was  controlled  in  its  own  passions,  prejudices,  and  purposes, 
and  went  its  own  way  without  any  particular  regard  for  the 
rights  of  the  others,  except  so  far  as  they  affected  its  own  in- 
terests favorably.  During  this  period  of  sixty-four  years  eight 
different  wars  occurred  in  Europe,  not  counting  this  last  war, 
in  one  or  the  other  of  which,  at  times  in  one,  at  other  times  in 
two  or  three,  the  following  Governments  were  engaged :  Prussia, 
Austria,  Russia,  France,  Italy,  Turkey,  Serbia,  Rumania,  Greece, 
Bulgaria,  Poland,  and  Denmark. 

This  state  of  international  anarchy  began  with  the  rape  of 
Denmark  by  Prussia  and  Austria,  and  ended  in  the  lawless  in- 
vasion and  spoliation  of  Belgium  and  the  horrors  and  crimes  of 
the  war  just  ended.  Most  of  these  were  wars  of  aggression,  de- 
liberately planned  and  criminally  carried  out.  Their  known  pur- 
pose was  either  commercial  brigandage  or  territorial  robbery, 
worked  out  without  the  least  regard  for  the  lives,  rights,  and 
happiness  of  the  individual  human  beings,  or  the  nation  as  a 
whole,  affected. 

In  this  style  Prussia  and  Austria  made  war  on  little  Denmark 
and  robbed  her  of  territory;  Prussia  made  war  on  Austria  and 
robbed  her  of  territory;  Prussia  made  war  on  France  after, 
through  crooked  diplomacy,  arranging  it  that  no  other  nation 
would  come  to  her  aid,  and  robbed  her  of  territory  and  a  big 
indemnity.  And  so  on  through  the  criminal  and  disgusting  roll 
of  these  wars,  while  anarchy  laughed  to  see  the  sport. 

The  climax  of  this  carnival  of  blood  and  crime  was  reached 
in  this  last  terrible  war  which  sucked  into  its  burning  vortex 
most  of  the  nations  of  the  world.  Shall  the  condition  and 
systems  which  produced  these  results  be  permitted  to  continue? 
Shall  no  effort  be  made  to  effect  a  change  through  the  history 
and  experience  in  the  formation  of  our  Constitution  which  have 
shown  that  there  is  an  effective  remedy  by  limiting  irresponsible 
individual  nationalism  and  substituting  collective  nationalism? 

Even  had  the  world  no  such  tested  plan,  it  would  be  foolish 
and  cowardly  not  to  try  to  work  out  one,  while  this  many-headed 
beast  lies  wounded  and  crippled  among  the  corpses  of  its  vic- 
tims. Shall  no  weapon  be  used  and  no  effort  made  to  finish  it? 
It  is  always  easier  to  follow  precedent  and  let  the  world  wag 


A    LEAGUE    OF    NATIONS  261 

than  to  think  or  know  history  and  draw  light  from  its  lessons* 
and  act  upon  them.  It  is  safer  always  to  stand  by  and  see 
murder  done  by  a  gunman  than  to  attempt  to  protect  his  vic- 
tim and  arrest  him. 

Forms  of  government,  whether  despotisms,  monarchies,  or 
democracies,  are,  in  the  last  analysis,  experiments  in  human 
housekeeping.  The  world  is,  has  been,  and  always  will  be  in 
transition  and  in  a  flux.  Conditions  are  constantly  changing, 
which  necessitate  changes  in  the  methods  of  governmental  house- 
keeping. There  is  no  trick  of  perpetual  motion  in  government 
any  more  than  in  machinery.  What  under  the  conditions  of 
yesterday  was  impossible  becomes  not  only  possible  but  neces- 
sary today.  There  was  a  time  when  each  man  lived  in  his 
own  house,  and  stoves  were  not  known  for  cooking  and  mod- 
ern methods  of  architecture  were  not  practiced.  Today  he  lives 
gregariously  in  apartment  houses. 

At  the  time  when  our  Constitution  was  adopted  the  thirteen 
States  were  as  remote  from  and  had  less  communication  with 
each  other  than  the  peoples  of  the  world  have  with  each  other 
today.  So  that  the  government  housekeeping  that  was  impossible 
for  the  world  at  that  time  may  be  possible  today,  and  the  ac- 
cepted method  in  the  near  future. 

As  time  goes  on,  each  generation  has  a  larger  store  of  clarified 
experience,  material,  and  improved  methods  with  which  to  build. 

Had  collective  nationalism  been  in  existence  in  Europe  in 
the  form  of  a  League  of  Nations,  combining  the  moral,  physical, 
and  economic  forces  of  the  nations,  Denmark  would  not  have 
been  wantonly  attacked  and  ravished,  nor  would  any  of  these 
wars  probably  have  occurred.  The  balance  of  power  policy  was 
in  full  swing  during  this  period,  and  instead  of  acting  as  a 
preventive  of  international  anarchy  it  proved  to  be  a  breeder 
of  it. 

America's  Example 

Now  a  word  or  two  as  to  the  second  part  of  my  proposition : 
After  the  conclusion  of  the  Revolutionary  War  lethargy  and 
lack  of  interest  in  the  general  welfare  of  the  States  as  a  whole 
developed,  and  vital  ambition  and  the  spirit  of  co-operation 
seemed  in  a  measure  to  have  flown.  The  Government,  under 
the  Articles  of  Confederation,  seemed  to  have  lost  its  purpose 


262  SELECTED  ARTICLES 

and  the  reason  for  its  existence.  Each  separate  State  began 
to  be  absorbed  entirely  with  its  own  small  affairs  and  neglect 
its  duty  toward  the  common  interest.  The  Articles  themselves 
were  without  effective  means  of  effecting  their  purposes. 

The  States  began  to  pass  discriminatory  tariffs  against  each 
other,  to  issue  each  its  own  irresponsible  paper  money  as  legal 
tender  for  debts.  One  State  refused  to  surrender  criminals  to 
another  State  because  it  approved  of  their  criminal  acts.  The 
people  of  Pennsylvania  and  Connecticut  were  actually  at  war, 
plundering  and  killing  each  other  in  the  Wyoming  Valley. 
Shays's  Rebellion  occurred  in  Massachusetts.  Mobs  at  certain 
points  in  Massachusetts  broke  up  the  courts.  Generally  the 
States  almost  to  their  limit  indulged  in  petty  hostility  toward 
each  other.  There  was  a  jealous  spirit  among  them,  striving 
each  for  its  own  advantage  and  watchful  of  a  chance  to  do  injury 
to  some  other  State. 

Confusion  and  disorder  and  international  anarchy  were  every- 
where present,  due  to  each  State  having  adopted  again  a  policy 
of  individual  nationalism,  which  they  had  abandoned  in  their 
League  of  Friendship  for  the  common  interest  of  all  during  the 
Revolutionary  War.  It  is  not  possible  here  to  picture  fully  the 
deplorable  conditions  of  international  anarchy  among  the  States 
which  existed  at  this  period.  Any  one  who  has,  or  will,  study 
the  history  of  the  period  will,  I  am  sure,  agree  with  my  statement 
that  international  anarchy  existed  in  most  forbidding  and  threat- 
ening shape.  Washington,  speaking  of  this  state  of  international 
anarchy,  said: 

"It  is  as  clear  to  me  as  A  B  C  that  an  extension  of  Federal 
power  would  make  us  one  of  the  most  happy,  wealthy,  respectable, 
and  powerful  nations  that  ever  inhabited  the  terrestial  globe. 
Without  it  we  shall  soon  be  everything  which  is  the  direct  re- 
verse." 
Jefferson  writing  to  Madison  said : 

"If  it  remains  much  longer  in  its  present  state  of  imbecility 
we  shall  be  one  of  the  most  contemptible  nations  on  the  face 
of  the  earth." 

And  Hamilton  said: 

"There  is  scarcely  anything  that  can  wound  the  pride  and 
degrade  the  character  of  an  independent  nation  which  we  do  not 
experience." 


A    LEAGUE    OF    NATIONS  263 

The  result  of  this  deplorable  state  of  anarchy  was  that  Wash- 
ington with  other  idealists  advocated: 

.  1.     An  indissoluble  union  of  all  the  States  under  a  single 
Federal  Government,  with  power  of  enforcing  its  decrees. 

2.  That  the  people  must  be  willing  to  sacrifice  some  of  their 
local  interest  to  the  common  weal;  must  disregard  their  local 
prejudices  and  regard  one  another  as  common  citizens  of  a  com- 
mon country  with  identical  interests  in  the  truest  sense. 

Birth  of  our  Constitution 

This  international  anarchy,  the  common  danger  and  general 
disorder  of  the  country,  finally  moved  certain  leading  men  in  the 
different  States — most  of  them,  including  Washington,  of  that 
class  known  as  idealists,  of  whom  some  of  what  Bacon  calls  the 
"seeming  wise"  statesmen  speak  so  flippantly — who  appreciated 
the  danger  of  the  situation,  to  actively  confer  and  finally  arrange 
for  the  different  States  to  send  representatives  to  consider  and 
discuss  the  situation.  These  representatives  came  together  in  a 
convention  at  Philadelphia,  known  as  the  Constitutional  Conven- 
tion, and,  after  much  debate,  prepared  and  submitted  to  the 
States  for  adoption  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States. 

This  Constitution  was  finally  adopted  by  the  States,  though 
its  adoption  was  not  by  all  of  them  at  once.  By  its  adoption 
individualism  nationalism  was  abandoned  and  refuge  and  safety 
sought  and  found  in  the  ark  of  collective  nationalism  and  a 
League  of  Nations.  This  was  achieved  primarily  through  a 
revival  and  reorganization  of  the  old  friendship  and  friendly  co- 
operation based  upon  common  ideals  of  ordered  freedom,  which 
brought  these  States,  when  colonies,  together  to  fight  the  Revo- 
lutionary War. 

Under  this  collective  nationalism  provided  by  the  Constitu- 
tion, that  friendship  between  the  States  has  grown  and  solidified 
until  through  more  than  a  century  of  peace  and  liberty  this 
League  of  Nations  has  grown  to  be  the  most  powerful,  the 
most  intelligent,  the  most  human,  the  most  kindly,  the  most  rea- 
sonable, and  the  most  united  people  in  the  world,  while  Europe 
under  continued  unregulated  individual  nationalism  has  fallen 
prey  to  anarchy.  And  the  Chief  Magistrate  of  this  League  has 
been  called  and  has  gone  to  this  European  political  hospital  to 


264  SELECTED    ARTICLES 

attempt  to  bind  up  the  wounds  and  restore  the  mangled  and 
broken  remains  of  its  political  body,  where  he  has  been  and  is 
daily  being  greeted  with  enthusiasm  and  kindness  almost  amount- 
ing to  affection  by  the  peoples  of  these  nations  and  their  states- 
men and  rulers,  because  he  is  the  acknowledged  enemy  of  in- 
dividual nationalism  and  the  spokesman  of  a  collective  national- 
ism which  will  prevent  a  return  to  the  old  order  and  thereby 
establishing  a  guarantee  of  peace. 

It  is  but  to  look  on  one  picture  of  Europe,  and  then  upon 
the  other  of  the  United  States,  for  even  a  wayfaring  man  to 
reach  an  intelligent  conclusion.  This  League  of  Nations  job  has 
been  done  once  successfully,  why  can  it  not  be  done  again?  The 
principle  has  been  tried  and  has  worked  successfully  here,  why 
can  it  not  be  applied  and  made  to  work  successfully  elsewhere? 
The  units  to  be  assembled  for  the  structure  are  the  same  ele- 
mental human  traits  of  friendship,  hope,  love  of  peace,  and 
yearning  for  ordered  freedom  which  are  the  fundamentals,  that 
when  organized,  will  form  the  framework  of  a  League  of  Na- 
tions. 

Instead  of  holding  back  and  speculating  about  whether  and 
how  this  league  can  be  formed  we  should  "go  to  it"  and  tackle 
the  job.  If  Columbus  had  tried  first  to  fully  satisfy  himself  of 
the  success  of  his  undertaking  he  would  never  have  made  the 
venture  and  discovered  America.  If  the  delegates  from  the 
Colonies  which  met  in  Philadelphia  before  the  Revolutionary 
War  had  waited  to  satisfy  themselves  of  the  result,  or  work  out 
the  details,  they  would  never  have  fought  and  won  that  war, 
would  never  have  issued  the  Declaration  of  Independence.  Nor 
would  those  other  delegates  who  met  after  that  war  in  the 
Constitutional  Convention  at  Philadelphia  to  consider  a  remedy 
for  the  deplorable  conditions  of  anarchy  then  existing  among  the 
original  States  ever  have  constructed  the  Constitution  of  the 
United  States. 

Something  had  to  be  done,  and  done  at  once,  and  they  did  it. 
They  backed  their  knowledge  and  judgment  of  the  past,  as  well 
as  the  possibilities  which  inhered  in  the  facts  of  human  nature, 
and  the  ideals  of  the  people,  and  went  promptly  and  boldly  for- 
ward to  the  accomplishment  of  the  task  that  proved  to  be  the 
greatest  enterprise  of  all  time.  Civilization  is  born  of  the  ex- 
perience of  men,  and  is  perfected  by  experience,  as  are  all  hu- 
man institutions. 


A    LEAGUE    OF    NATIONS  265 

These  framers  of  our  Constitution  and  first  great  league  of 
nations  have  but  a  flickering  light  from  out  the  past  to  guide 
their  effort's.  We,  however,  have  for  our  guidance  the  great 
headlight  of  their  example,  and  the  success  of  their  work,  our 
own  league  of  nations.  We  have  only  to  apply  and  suitably 
adjust  to  the  world  the  human  principles  which  its  founders 
used  in  building  our  Constitution.  The  word  Constitution  comes 
from  two  Latin  words,  con  "together"  and  statuens  "placing," 
meaning  "placing  together,  setting  up,  as  in  a  frame  or  body  of 
essential  parts." 

"World  Constitution"  Needed 

Let  us  examine  the  human  principles  in  the  Constitution, 
quoting  its  preamble.     Read  it  with  care,  weighing  each  word : 

"We,  the  people  of  the  United  States,  in  order  to  form  a 
more  perfect  union,  establish  justice,  insure  domestic  tranquility, 
provide  for  the  common  defense,  promote  the  general  welfare, 
and  secure  the  blessings  of  liberty  to  ourselves  and  to  our  pos- 
terity, do  hereby  ordain  and  establish  this  Constitution  of  the 
United  States." 

With  these  human  principles,  supported  by  the  yearnings  for 
peace  which  come  to  us  on  winged  voices  from  the  uttermost 
parts  of  the  earth,  as  an  incentive,  build  your  World  Constitu- 
tion, your  League  of  Nations,  as  Washington,  Franklin,  Madi- 
son, Hamilton,  Sherman,  and  the  other  great  idealists,  enemies 
of  doubt  and  doers  of  deeds,  built  the  Constitution  of  our  country. 

What  is  good  for  the  whole  is  good  for  every  part,  the  com- 
mon good  reacts,  and  each  part  is  benefited  by  the  welfare  of 
the  whole.  Friendliness  and  goodness  in  person  or  nation  are 
the  immediate  jewels  of  their  souls.  They  grow  with  practice 
and  nourish  themselves.  A  nation  without  friendliness  and  good- 
ness is  a  busy,  mischievous,  wretched  thing,  a  thing  for  treason 
and  spoils,  and  is  already  diseased  and  doomed. 

There  was  never  a  change  for  the  better  in  human  affairs 
and  government  that  good  and  wise  men  were  not  found  to 
oppose  it,  and  to  prophesy  disasters  which  never  happened,  for 
time  is  humorously  reckless  of  the  reputations  of  prophets.  It 
is  our  limited  vision  and  uncertain  thoughts,  controlled  too  often 
by  words,  that  people  our  mental  darkness  with  hobgoblins  and 
spectres. 


I 


266  SELECTED    ARTICLES 

The  real  Government  will  not  be  permanent  unless  it  rests 
upon  ideals.  The  world  must  not  compromise  with  this  situation. 
Some  one  has  said  that  compromise  was  "a  good  umbrella  but 
a  poor  roof."  It  is  a  temporary  expedient  and  almost  sure  to 
be  unwise  statesmanship.  Government  becomes  more  nearly 
perfect  as  it  approaches  Christianity. 

In  conclusion  let  me  quote  from  Lincoln,  who  once  said  with 
his  uncommon  sanity:  "I  haven't  much  opinion  of  a  man  who 
isn't  wiser  today  than  he  was  yesterday." 


TOWARDS    THE    NEW    EUROPE1 

Old  Europe  has  lost  its  traditions.  With  the  elimination  of 
the  pyramid  monarchical  state,  the  power  idea,  with  its  terri- 
torial or  map  policy,  has  become  an  anachronism,  and  can  hardly 
be  restored.  With  it  there  must  necessarily  go  secret  diplomacy, 
which  is  the  handmaid  of  dynastic  despotism,  for  republics  and 
constitutional  monarchies  can  never  attain  to  any  fixity  of  the 
pyramid  condition,  being  themselves  conditioned  by  consent. 
And  this  is  Europe's  new  value.  Out  of  the  furnace  there  has 
come  the  voice  of  the  people — democracy.  The  apex  state  is  no 
more.  There  is  no  longer  a  reason  for  the  balance  of  power, 
peoples  being  inherently  pacific  in  their  opportunities.  In  the 
prospective  reign  of  parliaments,  the  power  idea  forfeits  its 
panache.  We  have  presented  Europe  with  a  new  box  of  bricks 
with  which  to  build  towers  not  from  the  pinnacle  but  from  the 
base. 

To  build  upward,  that  is,  instead  of  downward.  We  start 
afresh.  We  start  internationally  for  the  first  time  with  a  com- 
mon equation.  The  map  becomes  a  national  sanctuary  instead  of 
an  international  potentiality,  and  with  it  man  ceases  to  be  a 
mere  regimental  number.  He  is  to  become  a  voice,  and  in  his 
collectivity  he  is  to  be  the  sanction — the  whole,  the  state.  That 
clearly  is  the  first  step,  the  setting  up  in  Europe  of  constitutional 
government. 

When  that  work  has  been  accomplished,  when  nation  faces 
nation  as  a  vocal  reality  and  not  as  a  competitive  or  rival  dynasty, 

1  By  Austin  Harrison.  In  the  English  Review  for  December,  19 18. 
p.  448. 


A    LEAGUE    OF    NATIONS  267 

one  at  least  of  the  main  causes  of  war  will  have  been  removed, 
and  we  shall  have  won  the  greatest  victory  in  the  history  of 
civilisation.  Yet  so  much  clearly  is  procurable.  The  next  step 
towards  the  League  of  Nations,  or  removal  of  the  causes  of 
war,  may  seem  for  the  moment  more  difficult  precisely  because, 
unlike  the  first  condition,  it  is  not  a  force  value.  The  second 
step  is  the  problem  how  far  Europe  can  become  international  in 
interest;  whether,  in  fact,  we  can  pass  nationally,  or  even  peace- 
fully, from  the  competitive  to  the  co-operative  order. 

The  durability  of  any  idea  of  a  League  of  Nations  will  de- 
pend upon  that  evolution,  and  this  will  be  the  quintessential  task 
and  test  of  the  Peace  Conference.  I  am  hopeful,  not  only  be- 
cause the  root  causes  of  militarism  have  been  destroyed,  but  be- 
cause the  motive  force  of  democracy  must  be,  economically  and 
spiritually,  international.  The  life  idea  of  Socialism  is  interna- 
tionalism now  the  major  part  of  Europe  has  become  Socialist. 
That  is  one  very  dependable  reason.  Continental  Socialism, 
particularly  in  Germany,  evaporated  at  the  call  of  war  because 
the  pyramid  state  had  been  too  powerful  for  it.  As  Germany 
became  freer  domestically,  Socialism  lost  its  international  char- 
acter in  the  delirium  of  a  deliberately  imposed  national  egoism 
which  ultimately  became  a  mania.  It  has  returned  as  the  justifi- 
cation of  the  people's  sacrifice.  One  may  describe  it  as  the  only 
blossom  left  in  Central  Europe.  Its  constructive  creed  is  inter- 
nationalism, and  though  in  Russia  government  has  passed  into 
the  chaos  of  extremism,  that,  we  must  remember,  is  largely  due 
to  the  peculiar  conditions  of  Russia  plunged  overnight  from 
the  darkness  of  mediaevalism  into  the  Elysium  of  a  freedom 
which  already  contained  all  the  disabilities  of  wreckage  and 
bankruptcy. 

Bolshevism  is  only  a  transient  condition  almost  inevitable  in 
an  illiterate  people  jerked  free  from  centuries  of  oppression. 
Like  all  anarchy,  it  will  pass  probably  into  some  form  of  Social- 
ism, for  the  question  in  Russia  is  the  land,  and  the  land  now  will 
belong  to  the  people.  There  is  no  escape  from  this  completion 
of  the  Russian  revolution.  The  land  for  the  people.  Already 
it  is  one  of  the  cries  of  Europe,  one  of  the  life  issues  of  the  war. 
And  it  is  well,  for  here  we  have  the  great  principle,  opportunity 
which  strikes  at  the  foundations  of  Feudalism,  a  demand  which 
is  vitally  national,  and  in  its  incidence  economically  international. 


268  SELECTED    ARTICLES 

It  proclaims  and  affixes  the  national  right.  It  smashes  the 
pyramid  structure.  In  the  earth,  the  peasant  of  Europe  will 
wield  the  pick  of  peace,  and  with  his  plough  he  will  make  his- 
tory. 

People  may  doubt  and  speak  of  the  natural  law  of  the  fittest, 
and  for  the  time  power  values  will  appear  to  dominate  mankind ; 
but  in  reality  this  is  poor  thinking.  Not  only  has  the  personal 
system  of  government  gone,  but  it  is  highly  problematic  whether 
the  old  economic  system  has  not  failed,  as  it  unquestionably  has 
failed  in  the  major  part  of  Europe,  which  is  theoretically  and 
actually  bankrupt. 

But  out  of  this  bankruptcy  a  live  new  thing  has  appeared — 
principle;  the  principle  that  empires  and  nations  are  no  longer 
to  have  the  right  to  acquire  other  nations'  land  and  bodies,  and 
this  is  what  is  meant  by  self-determination.  It  is  the  new  Euro- 
pean Charter.  Incredibly  strange  as  it  is,  this  law  or  foundation 
of  morality  is  an  absolutely  new  code  hitherto  unrecognized  and 
even  scorned  by  politicians,  writers  and  potentates  of  all  peoples 
as  mere  academic  utopianism.  Old  men,  particularly,  view  this 
projected  slice  into  the  perspective  of  their  history  books  with 
cynicism.  They  cannot  think,  as  it  were,  off  the  map,  for  they 
do  not  realize  that  they  stand  at  the  end  of  an  epoch. 

Yet  unquestionably  we  do  so  stand.  The  bier  of  feudal  Eu- 
rope is  our  charge.  European  chaos  is  our  unmeasured  re- 
sponsibility, and  it  can  only  be  redeemed  by  principle.  War  or 
destruction  has  thus  worked  down  to  a  condition  of  positive 
negatism,  which,  if  continued,  must  involve  in  its  disintegration 
and  ruin  the  whole  fabric  of  society,  or  we  build  anew  upon 
principle.  Literally,  this  is  the  only  alternative.  As  we  did  not 
make  war  on,  but  for,  humanity,  so  to-day  our  mandate  must  be 
constructive.  To  bring  about  accord,  in  place  of  the  old  discord. 
To  dispense  the  justice  of  harmony.  To  induce  that  harmony 
into  a  whole  of  satisfied  co-operation. 

The  cynic  and  socialist  may  scoff,  but  the  question  here  is 
the  determinant.  What  is  the  propulsive  force  of  the  new  order, 
for  obviously  there  must  be  a  new  order,  seeing  that  the  old  one 
is  dead?  If  the  spirit  of  monarchical  antagonisms  has  disap- 
peared, can  we  conceive  of  a  spirit  of  co-operation  under  any 
order  of  society  founded  on  the  patriotism  of  the  flag,  whether 
dynastic  or  democratic?  And  if  so,  how  are  we  to  advance  to 
it? 


A    LEAGUE    OF    NATIONS  269 

The  answer  is  principle;  the  problem  is  the  acceptability  of 
its  dispensation.  This  is  the  world's  danger,  because  the  difficulty 
here  is  sacrifice.  Sacrifice  of  attitude;  in  other  words,  the  capa- 
bility of  thinking  internationally  or  co-operatively.  We  shall 
never  do  this  singly,  or  even  collectively,  except  on  a  common 
basis  of  law,  such  as  is  possible  in  a  Declaration  of  Rights.  And 
this  will  be  the  responsibility  of  the  Peace  Conference.  It  will 
have  to  establish  itself  not  only  as  a  Court  of  Judgment,  but 
primarily  as  a  Parliament  of  Man.  Its  main  function  will  not 
be  military,  political,  or  economic,  but  social,  that  is,  international. 
Here  only  principle  can  avail,  and  this  will  be  the  difficulty  of 
the  nations. 

The  indispensable  condition  of  safety  is  the  formulation  in 
advance  of  the  principles  which  are  to  govern  all  decisions, 
whether  of  empire  or  of  nationhood,  and  already  it  is  clear  that 
far  more  precise  and  comprehensive  definitions  are  required  than 
those  loosely  accepted,  because  arbitrarily  promoted,  as  a  basis 
in  the  American  fourteen  points.  If  Europe  is  to  attain  to  Mr. 
Wilson's  impersonal  justice,  Europe  must  be  called  upon  to  co- 
operate fully  and  integrally,  and  America  also  must  give  proof 
of  her  will  to  sacrifice.  One  of  the  President's  points  refers 
to  barrier  tariffs,  yet  it  is  clear  from  the  Republican  attitude 
that  America  is  by  no  means  willing  to  co-operate  in  this  im- 
portant condition  of  a  co-operative  order,  and  if  so,  then  Europe 
cannot  be  expected  to  respond.  War  may  pass  from  a  princely 
right  to  that  of  the  god,  Capital,  and  the  next  era  may  con- 
ceivably be  controlled  by  the  struggle  for  the  natural  resources 
of  the  world,  which  is,  indeed,  the  great  problem  of  Empire. 
If,  for  example,  Europe,  or  a  large  part  of  it,  is  shut  out  by  way 
of  punishment  or  for  so-called  motives  of  "security"  from  a 
legitimate  share  in  the  products  of  life,  then  we  shall  have 
achieved  little,  certainly  nothing  that  is  permanent;  nor  will 
the  right  of  war  be  either  deflected  or  suppressed.  Yet  this  is 
essentially  a  democratic  question,  and  undoubtedly  will  be  de- 
cided sooner  or  later  internationally  by .  democracy,  the  now  ar- 
ticulate opinion  of  Europe  unbound.  As  a  result  of  the  war, 
Europe  will  have  for  the  first  time  a  people's  mandate,  embracing 
in  huge  areas  the  women.  A  Peace  Conference  which  acted 
contrary  to  this  spirit  of  the  old  age  could  only  bring  about  a 
temporary  settlement,  would  sow  the  seeds  of  European  revo- 


270  SELECTED  ARTICLES 

lution,  would  in  the  end  salve  but  a  phantom.  At  stake  are 
the  systems  of  militarism,  capitalism,  and  imperialism,  and  they 
are  largely  interlocked.  The  demand  is  the  principle  of  the 
right  to  live — opportunity  or  co-operation,  and  in  this  demand 
the  claims  of  the  awakened  soldiers  and  workers  here  and  every- 
where will  ultimately  prove  decisive. 

Again,  our  salvation  lies  in  principle.  To  obtain  it,  Europe 
must  be  summoned  to  definitions  and  declarations  of  accepted 
governing  principles  for  the  solution  of  the  many  complex  prob- 
lems at  issue,  in  which  work  there  must  obviously  be  two  dis- 
tinctive, though  parallel,  processes.  The  one,  the  settlement  of 
war;  the  other,  reconstruction. 

What  we  have  overthrown  is  the  pyramid  or  monarchical 
state — henceforth  Europe  will  move  on  horizontal,  not  on  ver- 
tical, lines.  And  that  politically,  socially,  and  economically.  The 
vertical  state  implied  slavery,  concentrated  all  power  in  the  hands 
of  the  few,  moved  above  the  heads  of  the  peoples  egocentrically, 
in  applied  and  antagonistic  isolation.  As  a  creed  of  isolation, 
for  the  purpose  of  appropriation.  But  with  the  demolition  of 
the  vertical  order,  power  isolation,  as  formerly  understood,  will 
be  no  longer  tolerated.  In  its  causal  action,  the  horizontal  posi- 
tion is  co-operative  or  utilitarian,  the  reverse  of  the  system  of 
competition,  which  again  in  the  modern  conditions  of  war  and 
economics  must  assume  some  form  of  the  vertical  state,  or 
authority,  which  conditions  because  itself  it  is  the  condition. 
Dynastically,  this  is  no  longer  the  case;  our  rulers  will  be  wise 
to  learn  the  lesson  economically.  A  Peace  Conference  that 
sought  to  reimpose  the  vertical  system  of  society,  whether  in 
the  form  of  group  or  capitalist  interest,  would  find  itself  at  clash 
with  the  longitudinal  forces  of  its  parts,  in  a  word,  with  its 
own  dynamics.  Europe,  in  short,  cannot  be  constricted  or  re- 
constructed on  vertical  lines  of  competitive  power  system,  be- 
cause the  spirit  of  the  whole  has  become  horizontally  evened,  at 
least  in  its  corporate  stratification  of  government,  and  this  is  a 
condition  diametrically  opposed  to  isolated  antagonisms,  whether 
of  creed  of  country  or  advantage,  because  democracies  move 
on  principle,  whereas  kings  move  on  system.  We  have  then 
already  the  clay  of  the  new  order  in  the  equation  of  popular 
government,  which  necessarily  implies  decentralisation,  indi- 
vidualism, freedom,  as  we  have  the  spirit  of  the  new  order  out 


A    LEAGUE    OF    NATIONS  271 

of  the  accepted  failure  of  the  old  spirit.  Politicians,  therefore, 
will  seek  at  their  peril  to  build  pyramids  of  centralisation  either 
for  national  or  for  group  interests,  because  Europe  has  ceased 
to  be  a  fortress  of  isolated  antagonisms ;  she  has  in  her  disparate 
units  of  re-established  nationhood  dissolved  into  a  socialisable 
whole.  She  has  attained  to  the  form  and  structure  of  a  synthe- 
sis. 

The  type  of  mind  which  sees  in  the  coming  Conference 
merely  a  Board  of  Control  to  set  up  a  police  law  of  arbitration 
is  not  thinking  beyond  a  twelve  months'  span,  nor  is  this  the 
road  to  Mr.  Wilson's  "family"  of  Europe.  A  family  must  have 
opportunities,  or  it  will  fight  for  them,  must  fight  for  them. 
There  can  be  no  family  of  nations  unless  each  of  the  associate 
nations  is  unfettered,  just  as  all  or  any  rearrangement  of  the  map 
calculated  to  penalise  indefinitely  one  nation  or  group  at  the  ex- 
pense of  another  must  inevitably  lead  to  disharmony,  and  this 
applies  equally  to  all  strategic  interest  in  the  reshaping  of 
boundaries. 

The  issue  is  New  Europe — the  Europe  of  free  nationality,  of 
opportunity,  of  co-operation,  of  the  people.  It  is  not  an  Utopia 
that  we  contemplate,  for  we  already  have  an  equalisation  of  form 
and  attitude,  it  remains  but  to  give  them  life;  from  beneath, 
through  the  community  to  the  commonwealth. 

Yet  there  is  only  one  way  to  rebuild  Europe  constructively, 
with  any  hope,  that  is,  of  preventing  future  wars;  it  is  by  the 
security  of  principle  in  a  World  Charter  of  Rights.  We  did  it 
nationally  once,  we  can  do  it  now  internationally.  The  indis- 
pensable condition  of  success  is  sacrifice  of  attitude,  and  at  once 
we  are  faced  with  the  great  stain  on  our  civilisation — Ireland. 
It  will  be  ridiculous  for  us  to  insist  upon  the  moral  geography 
of  Jugo-Slavdom,  for  instance,  if  at  home  we  have  to  employ 
Prussian  methods  of  coercion  towards  Ireland,  for  that  is  the 
way  to  confusion.  All  problems  of  nationality  and  of  interde- 
pendence must  henceforth  be  decided  by  principle — or  they  will 
remain  undecided.  Similarly,  America  will  be  required  to  es- 
tablish some  equitable  principle  of  adjustment  covering  the  im- 
perial problem  of  Japan,  or  that  imperial  problem  will  remain, 
rendering  negatory  all  effort  at  a  League  of  Nations.  The  dark 
problem  of  Africa  is  another  morass.  And  there  is  the  anomaly 
of  our  class   war  with  Russia,   which  in   itself  is  an  outrage 


l  V 


272  SELECTED    ARTICLES 

against  the  first  principles  of  nationality.  There  are  not  prob- 
lems for  politicians,  who  themselves  have  largely  caused  them. 
They  can  only  be  solved  co-operatively  by  principle.  They  thus 
demand,  as  the  precedent  condition  of  the  new  order,  the  clash 
and  friction  of  mind ;  in  other  words,  if  we  are  to  do  full  work 
we  must  thrash  out  these  problems  publicly ;  we  must  collaborate 
by  principle;  we  must  have  a  Conference,  as  the  executive  of 
select  assessory  conferences,  which  shall  confederate. 


THE  FOURTEEN  POINTS  AND  THE 
LEAGUE  OF  NATIONS1 

One  has  only  to  study  the  fourteen  conditions  of  peace  set 
forth  by  President  Wilson  in  his  speech  of  January  8  to  be  con- 
vinced of  two  things;  in  the  first  place,  they  primarily  concern 
the  conditions  of  a  permanent  peace  rather  than  merely  the  con- 
ditions of  peace  with  Germany  at  the  present  time ;  and  secondly, 
they  cannot  be  effectually  realized  in  detail  without  the  con- 
tinuing support  of  an  international  organization  which  shall  be 
administrative  in  character,  and  not  merely  judicial.  The  first 
consideration  concerns  us  here  only  as  it  is  bound  up  with  the 
second.  The  future  historian  will  point  out  the  extraordinary 
detachment  of  President  Wilson  from  exclusive  preoccupation 
with  immediate  war  issues.  He  will  note  that,  while  the  articles 
from  vii  to  xiii  are  concerned  with  territorial  issues  which  grow 
immediately  out  of  the  alignments  of  the  war,  even  these  are 
framed  within  a  statement  of  world  issues  which  might  (substi- 
tuting the  name  of  some  other  country  for  that  of  Russia  in 
article  vi)  have  been  laid  down  at  any  time  of  peace  in  a  dis- 
cussion of  fundamental  guarantees  of  world  peace.  He  will  then 
observe  that  these  specific  war  aims  appear  as  illustrations  of  the 
general  principles  by  means  of  matters  which  have  been  made 
urgent  in  the  course  of  the  war. 

Looking  in  detail  at  the  contents  of  the  fourteen  articles  in 
their  bearing  on  the  question  of  the  dominant  character  of  a 
League  of  Nations,  they  will  be  found  to  run  the  gamut  from 
those  which  absolutely  require  an  international  agency  with  leg- 

1  By  John  Dewey.     In  the  Dial  for  November  30,   19 18.  p.  463. 


A    LEAGUE    OF    NATIONS  273 

islative  and  administrative  powers  to  those  which  can  be  finally 
settled  by  the  peace  treaty  itself.  Intermediate  are  those  which 
can  formally  be  determined  by  the  Peace  Conference,  but  which 
require  a  permanent  international  body  to  insure  that  the  formal 
settlement  becomes  an  enduring  actuality.  A  study  of  the  four- 
teen conditions  from  this  point  of  view  will,  I  think,  justify  the 
following  conclusion :  there  are  but  two  matters  which  the  peace 
treaty  itself  can  finally  adjust.  These  are  the  righting  of  the 
wrong  done  France  in  respect  to  Alsace-Lorraine,  and  the  read- 
justment of  the  frontiers  of  Italy. 

Next  come  the  problems  of  restoration  affecting  all  the  terri- 
tories invaded  by  the  Central  Powers.  These  would  not  of 
course  demand  a  permanent  international  commission.  But  the 
work  to  be  undertaken  will  certainly  cover  a  period  of  years,  and 
it  will  involve  many  points  that  cannot  be  completely  covered  in 
advance  by  any  written  agreement.  If  the  work  of  restoration 
is  to  be  done  intelligently  and  in  a  way  which  will  not  leave  be- 
hind it  disputes  and  sore  points,  it  will  require  mixed  commis- 
sions involving  the  cooperation  of  statesmen,  economists,  physi- 
cians, engineers  and  technicians  of  all  sorts.  Since  not  all  ques- 
tions which  will  arise  can  be  treated  as  mere  matters  of  practical 
detail,  the  deliberations  of  these  commissions  will  have  to  be 
supervised  by  some  kind  of  international  council. 

Trenching  more  directly  upon  the  issue  of  a  permanent  in- 
ternational government  is  the  matter  of  international  covenants 
and  guarantees.  These  are  specifically  mentioned  in  the  case  of 
the  Balkan  States,  the  Dardanelles,  and  the  new  independent 
Polish  State.  They  are  certainly  directly  implied  in  the  reduction 
of  armaments,  and  in  cooperation  to  secure  for  Russia  an  "un- 
hampered and  unembarrassed  opportunity,"  to  say  nothing  of 
"assistance  of  every  kind  that  she  may  need  and  may  herself 
desire."  For  convenience  and  brevity  of  discussion,  these  con- 
cerns may  be  summed  up  in  the  problems  of  nationality  and  of 
restoration  of  order  compatible  with  freedom  in  eastern  and 
southeastern  Europe. 

Nothing  has  brought  international  relations  into  greater  dis- 
repute from  the  standpoint  of  law  than  the  tendency  to  write  cer- 
tain guarantees  into  treaties  of  peace  and  then  fail  to  furnish  any 
methods  for  making  these  "guarantees"  effectual.  In  part  this 
is  due  to  the  Pickwickian  piety  which,  when  "serious"  matters 


274  SELECTED    ARTICLES 

are  out  of  the  way,  may  overcome  in  a  moment  of  sentimental 
relief  even  a  congress  of  professional  diplomats.  But  in  greater 
measure  it  is  due  to  the  fact  that  as  affairs  now  stand — that  is, 
without  a  permanent  international  executive  body — the  attempt 
to  enforce  such  guarantees  might  indirectly  threaten  the  peace 
of  the  world.  An  earnest  effort  from  any  quarter  would  be 
regarded  as  having  back  of  it  some  interested  nationalistic  mo- 
tive, and  would  array  against  it  all  of  the  nations  on  the  other 
side  of  the  Balance  of  Powers,  even  if  their  own  national  in- 
terests were  in  no  way  involved.  It  is  much  safer  to  treat  the 
guarantee  written  into  the  treaty  of  peace  as  a  scrap  of  paper 
than  to  run  the  risk  of  dropping  a  spark  into  a  heap  of  inflam- 
able  international  material. 

Take  the  case  of  Roumania  and  the  problem  of  a  guarantee 
of  civil  rights  to  the  Jews.  On  the  face  of  it,  it  is  a  simple 
matter.  But  then  we  discover  that  it  is  a  question  of  internal 
political  constitution.  The  great  landowners  control  the  politics 
of  Roumania  through  controlling  the  franchise.  The  cities  and 
industrial  centers  are  discriminated  against.  The  Jews  are 
mainly  in  the  latter  places.  To  give  them  the  necessary  rights 
would  involve  giving  political  rights  to  others  who  are  now  dis- 
enfranchised so  as  to  secure  the  supremacy  of  the  landed  aristoc- 
racy. It  is  hard  to  see  how  an  adequate  guarantee  for  the  Jews 
is  to  be  secured  short  of  a  shift  of  the  center  of  internal  gravity 
in  the  whole  country.  When  one  considers  the  medley  of  na- 
tionalities in  eastern  Europe  and  the  inheritance  of  exacerbations 
along  with  religious  differences  and  economic  rivalries,  it  is 
harder  yet  to  avoid  the  conclusion  that  it  will  remain  the  tinder- 
box  of  Europe  unless  a  comprehensive  and  impartial  interna- 
tional government  undertakes  for  a  considerable  time  the  super- 
vision of  the  development  of  institutions  which  shall  insure  an 
adequate  adjustment  of  rights  in  this  enormously  delicate  situa- 
tion. 

The  strong  prejudice  against  external  intervention  in  domes- 
tic affairs  is  justified  as  long  as  the  theory  of  isolated  and  in- 
dependent sovereign  states  prevails  in  practice.  But  the  United 
States,  at  least,  has  been  largely  in  the  war  precisely  because  it 
realized  that  the  dividing  line  between  domestic  institutions  and 
foreign  policies  has  become  wholly  artificial.  It  was  precisely 
the  autocratic  domestic  institutions  of  Germany  which  drew  us 


A    LEAGUE    OF    NATIONS  275 

into  what,  in  its  origin,  was  a  purely  European  war.  So  far  as 
concerns  the  United  States,  the  war  was  either  an  evil  job  which 
had  to  be  undertaken  from  stern  necessity,  or  it  was  a  war  for 
such  intervention  in  the  "internal"  affairs  of  Germany  as  will 
guarantee  us  against  the  recurrence  of  any  such  catastrophe. 
The  logic  of  this  situation  demands  such  friendly  oversight  of 
the  affairs  of  other  states  from  which  world-wide  conflagration 
might  spring  as  will  forestall  wars  in  the  future.  And  since  the 
United  States  has  no  intention  of  becoming  a  crusading  Don 
Quixote  of  nations,  this  demand  means  precisely  a  permanent 
international  government  whose  powers  shall  be  even  more  exe- 
cutive and  administrative  than  judicial. 

It  remains  to  speak  of  those  two  articles  among  the  fourteen 
which  imply,  in  the  most  open  fashion,  a  League  for  economic  pur- 
poses that  is  concerned  with  permanent  regulation  of  those  eco- 
nomic affairs  which  cause  wars.  These  are  the  third  and  fifth 
articles,  dealing  respectively  with  the  removal  of  trade  barriers 
and  the  establishment  of  an  equality  of  trade  conditions,  and 
with  the  impartial  adjustment  of  all  colonial  problems.  It  is 
possible  for  opponents  of  the  President  to  interpret  the  third 
article  as  an  academic  proclamation  of  the  abstract  principle  of 
free  trade,  and  to  interpret  the  fifth  as  applying  merely  to  the 
German  colonies  which  have  been  seized  during  the  war.  But 
no  such  limitations  will  acccord  with  the  principles  of  the  decla- 
ration of  February  11  regarding  the  adjustments  most  likely  to 
bring  a  peace  that  will  be  permanent  and  that  shall  not  "per- 
petuate old  elements  of  discord  and  antagonism  that  would  in 
time  be  likely  to  break  the  peace  of  Europe  and  consequently  of 
the  world." 

A    LEAGUE    OF    NATIONS1 

The  ideal  of  European  unity  is  an  old  one,  but  its  develop- 
ment into  the  present  proposals  for  a  world-wide  League  of  Na- 
tions is  essentially  modern.  The  older  plans  serve  more  as  evi- 
dence of  the  beginnings  of  cosmopolitanism,  or  have  suggestions 
of  imperial  ambitions  or  desires  to  interfere  in  the  internal  af- 

1  In  "America's  War  Aims  and  Peace  Program,"  by  Carl  L.  Becker. 
War  Information  Series.  Issued  by  the  Committee  of  Public  Information. 
No.  21,  November,   19 18. 


276  SELECTED    ARTICLES 

fairs  of  certain  nations,  not  for  the  good  of  the  world  order  of 
the  people  most  concerned,  but  rather  for  the  good  of  the  inter- 
fering powers,  as  in  the  case  of  the  so-called  Holy  Alliance.  The 
recent  movement  toward  a  better  international  order  has  had  a 
sounder  basis,  in  the  best  interests  of  all  peoples;  and  it  has 
come  forward  logically  in  the  nineteenth  century,  side  by  side 
with  the  development  of  nationality.  This  internationalism  pre- 
supposes the  continuance  of  national  states,  and  arises  out  of 
their  contacts  and  common  interests.  It  is  the  more  evidently 
needed  as  the  number  of  nations,  and  especially  of  struggling 
nations,  increases.  Strong  nations  can  no  longer  exist  in  isola- 
tion, much  less  weak  ones. 

The  complete  breaking  down  of  national  isolation,  so  that 
every  nation  is  now  part  of  the  whole  world  order,  is  due  to  a 
new  economic  and  social  order,  with  which  our  political  organi- 
zation has  kept  pace.  The  chief  agencies  in  drawing  nations  to- 
gether are  railroads,  steamships,  telegraph  lines,  and  other 
means  of  communication,  and  those  aspects  of  industry  and 
commerce  which  make  for  interdependence.  The  last  sixty  years 
has  seen  an  increasing  multiplication  of  agencies  for  international 
expression  and  action.  -They  have  acted  in  the  main  intermit- 
tently and  in  separate  fields,  but  the  net  result  has  been  to  create 
a  marked  tendency  towards  internationalism  of  thought  and 
action.  Since  the  holding  of  the  first  International  Sanitary 
Conference  in  1850,  gatherings  or  congresses  have  been  held, 
with  varying  frequency,  to  deal  with  such  matters  as  statistics, 
sugar  duties,  fisheries,  weights  and  measures,  monetary  standards, 
international  posts  and  telegraphs,  the  navigation  of  rivers,  sub- 
marine cables,  private  international  law,  the  protection  of  copy- 
right, suppression  of  the  liquor  traffic  in  Africa,  the  abolition  of 
traffic  in  slaves,  promotion  of  the  interests  of  the  working  classes, 
the  advancement  of  international  arbitration,  promotion  of  woman 
suffrage,  and  various  topics  of  a  purely  scientific,  literary,  or 
historical  interest.  A  list  which  makes  no  pretence  to  complete- 
ness shows  116  such  official  international  conferences,  held  under 
government  sanction  or  initiative,  between  the  years  1850  and 
1907,  while  the  list  of  unofficial  congresses  must  be  very  much 
greater.  It  is  said  that  in  the  year  1907  alone  there  were  over 
160  such  gatherings,  official  and  unofficial. 

A  number  of  these  gatherings  have  resulted  in  permanently 


A    LEAGUE    OF    NATIONS  277 

organized  international  bureaus,  with  administrative  and  quasi- 
legislative  powers.  Examples  of  these  are  the  International 
Postal  Union,  organized  in  1874;  the  Union  for  the  Protection 
of  Industrial  Property  (patents,  trademarks,  etc.),  organized  in 
1883;  the  European  Union  of  Railway  Freight  Transportation, 
organized  in  1890,  etc.  At  the  same  time  there  came  to  be  an 
increased  reliance  for  the  preservation  of  peace  between  Govern- 
ments on  the  so-called  "Concert  of  Europe" — that  is  to  say,  the 
attempt  to  settle  international  questions  by  means  of  concerted 
action  of  the  five  or  six  great  powers,  acting  not  so  much  through 
public  treaties  as  through  joint  understandings  embodied  in  diplo- 
matic notes  and  other  communications.  At  the  close  of  the  nine- 
teenth century,  when  it  was  clear  that  the  Concert  of  Europe  was 
giving  way  to  two  rival  alliances,  the  ideal  of  a  definite  federa- 
tion of  Europe,  such  as  earlier  had  been  advanced,  again  revived. 
Societies,  of  which  the  League  to  Enforce  Peace,  the  American 
Association  for  International  Conciliation,  and  the  World  Peace 
Foundation  are  examples,  were  formed  and  were  active  in  the 
promotion  of  schemes  for  preventing  war.  The  Czar's  proposal 
of  disarmament  in  1899,  the  Hague  Conferences,  and  the  estab- 
lishment of  the  Hague  Tribunal,  are  all  indications  of  the  wide- 
spread interest  in  the  subject. 


REASONS    FOR    HAVING    LEAGUE 
OF    NATIONS1 

What  is  the  minimum  that  we  have  to  insist  on  in  order  that 
the  League  of  Nations  shall  be  a  reality  and  not  merely  the  use 
of  an  expression  to  disguise  one  of  the  old-fashioned  limited 
and  hostile  alliances  ? 

We  must  obtain  two  things  at  least.  We  must  obtain  se- 
curity for  all  nations,  whether  they  are  big  or  little,  highly  or- 
ganized or  industrial,  and  we  must  obtain  equality  of  economic 
opportunity.  No  logic  can  be  more  funny  than  that  which  talks 
about  safety  lying  in  the  highest  kind  of  military  preparedness 
only.  Such  preparedness  might  conceivably  make  China  to  a 
certain  extent  safe,  unless  there  was  a  big  combination  against 

1  By  Norman  Hapgood,  President  of  the  League  of  Free  Nations  Asso- 
ciation.    From  the  New  York  Times,  January  12,  19 19. 


278  SELECTED    ARTICLES 

her,  but  what  such  a  race  in  armaments  could  do  for  the  peace, 
comfort,  and  security  of  Belgium,  Poland,  Czechoslovakia,  Jugo- 
slavia, Armenia,  and  Palestine  is  not  particularly  easy  to  figure 
out. 

Two  great  considerations  brought  on  the  world  war,  along 
with  minor  causes  that  need  not  detain  us  just  now.  One  was 
jealousy  about  the  sources  of  raw  material  all  over  the  world, 
that  jealousy  expressing  itself  in  the  Bagdad  controversy,  the 
Morocco  controversy,  and  a  dozen  different  scrambles  for  con- 
trol of  undeveloped  fields.  The  other  was  the  attempt  to  meet 
this  menace  by  constantly  increasing  armaments,  so  that  the  Ger- 
mans, seeing  the  balance  of  power  tending  against  them  with 
the  growth  of  Russian  railroads,  decided  to  touch  the  match  to 
the  magazine  in  1914.  A  child  may  be  led  to  account  for  the 
war  exclusively  by  the  villainy  of  a  few  men,  and  so  may  the 
mob,  but  the  intellectual  simplicity  of  such  a  view  is  a  hopeless 
basis  for  any  solution  of  the  present  world  agony  that  will  give 
us  any  promise  of  a  better  and  safer  civilization. 

Let  it  not  be  supposed  that  equality  of  economic  opportunity 
prevents  such  tariffs  as  any  country  may  feel  requisite  for  the 
completing  of  its  essential  industries.  The  League  of  Nations, 
including  its  economic  plank,  is  being  defended  by  intelligent 
Protectionists,  just  as  it  is  being  defended  by  intelligent  Free 
Traders.  Indeed,  the  personnel  of  the  League  of  Free  Nations 
Association  is  sufficient  to  indicate  that  the  necessity  for  such  a 
league  can  be  seen  by  many  contrasting  types  of  free  minds. 

They  are  gathered  together  in  that  cause  here  and  abroad — 
Conservatives,  Liberals,  Socialists,  Free  Traders,  and  Protec- 
tionists; people  who  believe  that  Italy  should  control  the  Adri- 
atic and  people  whose  sympathies  are  with  the  Jugoslavs;  people 
who  believe  in  extreme  nationalistic  divisions,  and  people  who  be- 
lieve that  it  is  only  a  short  time  before  the  Czechoslovaks,  the 
Jugo-slavs,  and  the  Poles  will  have  some  kind  of  a  federation 
with  free  Russia;  people  who  sympathize  with  Liebknecht  and 
those  who  sympathize  with  Scheidemann;  those  who  wish  us  to 
take  a  hand  in  the  destiny  of  Russia  and  those  who  wish  us  to 
leave  it  alone.  The  League  of  Nations,  in  short,  is  to  exist  not 
for  the  sake  of  expounding  or  defending  any  doctrine,  but  for 
the  sake  of  having  a  mechanism  by  which  all  these  questions, 
sure  to  remain  extremely  difficult,  can  be  thought  out,  instead 


A    LEAGUE    OF    NATIONS  279 

of  being  fought  out.  The  doctrine  includes  the  enforcement  of 
peace  with  any  nation,  but  also  includes  something  far  different, 
namely,  the  removal  of  the  principal  causes  of  war. 

Of  course,  people  with  their  faces  backward  will  get  off  the 
same  old  story.  They  will  talk  about  the  new  step  being  against 
human  nature.  Mr.  Wells  has  replied  that  of  course  it  is  against 
human  nature,  just  as  are  policemen,  teachers,  and  doctors.  It 
may  indeed  be  said  that  if  this  move  were  not  against  human 
nature,  there  would  be  no  necessity  of  planning  and  organizing 
to  bring  it  about.  The  type  of  mind  that  discredits  any  effort 
by  indicating  that  the  effort  is  difficult  is  a  widespread  type,  but 
one  of  which  the  intellectual  brilliancy  is  not  great. 

One  thing  that  bothers  a  good  many  Americans  brought  up 
in  a  rather  narrow  interpretation  of  our  history  is  the  idea  that 
such  international  responsibilities  are  against  American  tradition; 
that  a  League  of  Nations,  in  other  words,  is  something  un-Ameri- 
can. It  seems  to  me  that  the  exact  opposite  is  the  fact.  The  ap- 
plication of  principles  has  to  change  with  the  growth  of  popula- 
tion and  of  power,  and  with  the  invention  of  the  steam  engine, 
the  telegraph,  and  the  telephone.  Our  trade  goes  all  over  the 
world,  knowledge  of  one  country  reaches  another  in  a  few  mo- 
ments, and  the  world  becomes  so  closely  united  that  our  country 
is  forced  into  the  war  in  spite  of  its  traditions' to  the  contrary. 

The  men  who  founded  this  nation  crossed  the  ocean  in  search 
of  freedom.  They  fought  a  great  civil  war  before  our  domestic 
understanding  about  the  meaning  of  freedom  became  clear.  We 
created  the  Monroe  Doctrine,  which  meant  the  protection  of 
weaker  States  in  this  hemisphere,  and  thereby  the  protection  of 
ourselves  from  foreign  wars.  We  now  propose  to  carry  that 
Monroe  Doctrine  further  and  to  be  the  leaders  in  the  creation 
of  an  arrangement  by  which  weaker  States,  not  only  in  this 
hemisphere  but  all  over  the  world,  shall  be  protected,  and  by 
which  we  shall  be  saved  not  only  from  wars  growing  out  of  any 
kind  of  imperialistic  enterprise,  but  out  of  any  cause  whatever. 
It  is  simply  the  Monroe  Doctrine  brought  up  to  the  circum- 
stances of  1918. 

To  tell  the  truth,  the  principal  difficulty  met  in  waking  up  the 
United  States  to  the  need  of  a  League  of  Nations  does  not  lie 
in  any  arguments  that  are  brought  against  it.  The  alleged  ar- 
guments scarcely  deserve  the  name.    The  difficulty  lies  in  intellec- 


SELECTED    ARTICLES 

lal  inertia.  The  ordinary  man  is  surprised  if  you  tell  him  that 
the  United  States  is  the  most  conservative  of  the  great  nations, 
but  almost  any  person  accustomed  to  thinking  internationally  will 
agree  that  that  statement  is  correct. 

The  time  is  short.  The  problem  really  is  whether  in  that 
short  time  the  United  States  can  be  brought,  as  a  whole,  to  lea- 
lize  what  the  situation  is.  If  it  does  have  a  full  realization  of  the 
situation  it  certainly  will  have  courage  and  enterprise  enough  to 
take  suitable  action  to  meet  it. 


THE    LEAGUE    OF    NATIONS1 

Without  question  there  is  a  general  desire  for  some  kind  of 
international  agreement  or  union  or  league  which  will  tend  to 
prevent  the  recurrence,  or  at  least  to  minimize  the  scope  and 
the  horrors  of  such  a  hideous  disaster  to  humanity  as  the  world 
war.  In  common  with  most  of  my  friends  I  strongly  share  this 
feeling;  indeed,  the  scheme  which  still  seems  to  me  most  likely 
to  prove  feasible  and  beneficial  in  action  is  that  which  I  gave 
in  outline  four  years  ago  in  the  little  volume  called  "America 
and  the  World  War."  In  discussing  this  scheme  I  emphasized 
the  vital  need  that  there  should  be  good  faith  among  those  en- 
tering into  the  scheme  and  honorable  conduct  in  living  up  to  the 
obligations  incurred;  for  heedless  readiness  to  make  promises 
which  are  unlikely  to  be  fulfilled  is  a  public  sin  but  one  degree 
lower  than  callous  readiness  to  break  promises  that  can  be  kept. 

In  living  up  to  the  promises  after  once  the  league  has  been 
formed,  the  chief  need  will  be  insistence  upon  keeping  faith 
when  keeping  faith  is  unpleasant  or  irksome.  But  in  forming 
the  league  the  chief  danger  will  come  from  the  enthusiastic  per- 
sons who  in  their  desire  to  realize  the  millennium  at  once,  right 
off,  play  into  the  hands  of  the  slippery  politicians  who  are  equally 
ready  to  make  any  promise  when  the  time  for  keeping  it  is  far 
distant,  and  to  evade  keeping  it  when  the  time  at  last  arrives. 

Nothing  is  easier  than  to  be  the  kind  of  sham  idealist  whose 
idealism  consists  in  uttering  on  all  occasions  the  loftiest  senti- 
ments, while  never  hesitating  to  act  in  direct  contravention  of 

1  By  Theodore  Roosevelt.  In  the  Metropolitan  Magazine  for  January, 
1919. 


A    LEAGUE    OF    NATIONS  281 

them  when  self-interest  is  dictator;  and  verily  this  man  has  his 
reward,  for  he  is  repaid  by  the  homage  of  all  the  foolish  people 
who  care  for  nothing  but  words,  and  by  the  service  of  all  the 
unscrupulous  people  whose  deeds  do  not  square  with  any  words 
which  can  be  publicly  uttered,  and  who  seek  profit  by  cloaking 
such  action  behind  over-zealous  adherence  to  lofty  phrases. 

But  the  idealist  who  tries  to  realize  his  ideals  is  sure  to  be 
opposed  alike  by  the  foolish  people  who  demand  the  impossible 
good  and  by  the  wicked  people  who  under  cover  of  adherence 
to  the  impossible  good  oppose  the  good  which  is  possible. 

If  the  League  of  Nations  is  built  on  a  document  as  high- 
sounding  and  as  meaningless  as  the  speech  in  which  Mr.  Wilson 
laid  down  his  fourteen  points,  it  will  simply  add  one  more  scrap 
to  the  diplomatic  waste  paper  basket.  Most  of  these  fourteen 
points,  like  those  referring  to  the  freedom  of  the  seas,  to  tariff 
arrangements,  to  the  reduction  of  armaments,  to  a  police  force 
for  each  nation,  and  to  the  treatment  of  colonies,  could  be  in- 
terpreted (and  some  of  them,  by  President  Wilson  and  his  ad- 
visers, actually  were  interpreted)  to  mean  anything  or  nothing. 
They  were  absolutely  true  to  the  traditions  of  the  bad  old  diplo- 
macy, for  any  nation  could  agree  to  them  and  yet  reserve  the 
right  to  interpret  them  in  diametrically  opposite  manner  to  the 
interpretation  that  others  put  upon  them. 

Therefore  in  forming  the  league  let  us  face  the  facts,  whether 
pleasant  or  unpleasant,  and  let  us  show  good  faith  with  ourselves 
and  with  every  one  else.  The  first  fact  is  that  nations  do  not 
stand  on  any  real  equality,  and  that  at  this  moment  we  are  not 
so  treating  them.    .  .  . 

It  is  of  course  obvious  that  it  would  be  absurd  to  include  in  a 
league  of  nations  countries  like  China,  Mexico,  Hayti  and  San 
Domingo,  on  a  makebelieve  equality  with  the  United  States  and 
Japan.  And  there  are  dozens  of  other  countries  which  stand 
in  the  same  category.  Moreover,  there  are  some  very  big  nations 
whose  recent  action  would  make  reliance  on  any  of  their  promises 
proof  of  a  feeble  intellect  on  our  part.  Most  certainly  Germany 
and  Turkey  ought  to  sit  on  the  mourners'  bench  a  good  many 
years  before  we  admit  them  to  fellowship — and  if  any  foolish 
person  says  that  the  German  people  and  the  German  Government 
were  not  the  same  thing,  it  is  enough  to  point  out  that  the 
German  people  throughout  supported  the  German  Government 


282  SELECTED    ARTICLES 

as  long  as  its  wrongdoing  seemed  likely  to  be  successful,  and 
abandoned  the  government  only  when  the  Allied  armies  obtained 
a  military  decision  over  those  of  Germany  and  her  vassals. 
Russia's  action  during  the  last  year  would  make  any  international 
guarantee  of  action  on  her  part  worth  precisely  nothing  as  a 
warrant  for  promise  or  action  on  our  part 

Therefore,  let  us  begin  by  including  in  the  league  only  the 
present  allies,  and  admit  other  nations  only  as  their  conduct  per- 
severed in  through  a  term  of  years  warrants  it.  Let  us  explicitly 
reserve  certain  rights — to  our  territorial  possessions,  to  our  con- 
trol of  immigration  and  citizenship,  to  our  fiscal  policy,  and  to 
our  handling  of  our  domestic  problems  generally — as  not  to  be 
questioned  and  not  to  be  brought  before  any  international  trib- 
unal. As  regards  impotent  or  disorderly  nations  and  peoples 
outside  the  league,  let  us  be  very  cautious  about  guaranteeing  to 
interfere  with  or  on  behalf  of  them  where  they  lie  wholly  out- 
side our  sphere  of  interest;  and  let  us  announce  that  our  own 
sphere  of  special  concern,  in  America  (perhaps  limited  to  north 
of  somewhere  near  the  equator),  is  not  to  be  infringed  on  by 
European  or  Asiatic  powers. 

Moreover,  let  us  absolutely  decline  any  disarmament  proposi- 
tion that  would  leave  us  helpless  to  defend  ourselves.  Let  us 
absolutely  refuse  to  abolish  nationalism ;  on  the  contrary,  let 
us  base  a  wise  and  practical  internationalism  on  a  sound  and 
intense  nationalism.  There  is  not  and  never  has  been  the  slight- 
est danger  of  this  country  being  militaristic  or  a  menace  to  other 
nations.  The  danger  is  the  exact  reverse.  Keep  our  navy  as 
second  to  that  of  Great  Britain.  Introduce  universal  military 
training;  say  nine  months  with  the  colors  for  every  young  man 
somewhere  between  the  ages  of  nineteen  and  twenty-three,  with 
extra  intensive  training  for  the  officers  and  non-commissioned 
officers,  and  preliminary  work,  including  especially  technical,  in- 
dustrial and  agricultural  training,  of  the  most  practical  kind,  in 
the  schools  for  the  boys  of  sixteen  to  eighteen.  We  would  there- 
by secure  an  army  which  would  never  be  desirous  of  an  offensive 
war;  and  its  mere  existence  would  be  the  best  possible  guarantee 
that  we  would  never  have  to  wage  an  offensive  war.  Prepare  in 
advance  the  material  necessary  for  the  use  of  our  first  line  when 
called  out;  don't  forget  that  we  were  able  to  fight  in  this  war 
only  because  our  allies  gave  us  at  the  battle  front  the  necessary 


A    LEAGUE    OF    NATIONS  283 

cannon,  tanks,  gas  machines,  airplanes  and  machine  guns — for 
until  almost  the  end  of  the  war  we  had  practically  none  of  our 
own  on  the  fighting  line. 

Then,  when  all  this  had  been  done,  let  us  with  deep  serious- 
ness ponder  every  promise  we  make,  so  as  to  be  sure  that  our 
people  will  fulfil  it.  It  will  be  worse  than  idle  for  us  to  enter 
any  league  if,  when  the  test  comes  in  the  future,  this  country 
acts  as  badly  as  it  did  in  refusing  to  make  any  protest  when 
Germany  violated  the  Hague  Conventions,  in  refusing  to  go  to 
war  when  the  Lusitania  was  sunk,  and  in  refusing  to  go  to  war 
with  Bulgaria  or  Turkey  at  all.  As  for  Germany,  unless  her 
cynical  violation  of  the  Hague  treaties  is  punished  we  put  a 
premium  on  any  violation  of  any  similar  treaty  hereafter.  Re- 
member that  the  essential  principle  of  the  league,  if  it  is  to  be 
successful,  must  be  the  willingness  of  each  nation  to  fight  for 
the  right  in  some  quarrel  in  which  at  the  moment  it  seems  we 
have  no  material  concern.  The  willpower,  the  intelligent  far- 
sightedness, and  the  stern  devotion  to  duty  implied  in  such  action 
stand  infinitely  above  the  loose  willingness  to  promise  anything 
characteristic  of  so  many  of  the  most  vociferous  advocates  of 
such  a  league. 

Let  us  go  into  such  a  league.  But  let  us  weigh  well  what  we 
promise;  and  then  train  ourselves  in  body  and  soul  to  keep  our 
promises.  Let  us  treat  the  formation  of  the  league  as  an  addition 
to  but  in  no  sense  as  a  substitute  for  preparing  our  own  strength 
for  our  own  defense.  And  let  us  build  a  genuine  international- 
ism, that  is,  a  genuine  and  generous  regard  for  the  rights  of 
others,  on  the  only  healthy  basis : — a  sound  and  intense  develop- 
ment of  the  broadest  spirit  of  American  nationalism.  Our 
steady  aim  must  be  to  do  justice  to  others,  and  to  secure  our 
own  nation  against  injustice;  and  we  can  achieve  this  two-fold 
aim  only  if  we  make  our  deeds  square  with  our  words. 


284  SELECTED    ARTICLES 


NOT    TIME    TO    TALK    LEAGUE1 

James  M.  Beck,  who  returned  from  Europe  recently,  said  in 
his  address  that  there  was  little  interest  in  England,  France  and 
Italy  in  the  project  for  a  League  of  Nations  and  the  impression 
here  that  the  masses  of  the  population  were  enthusiastic  for  it 
had  been  created  by  misleading  dispatches  from  American  cor- 
respondents. 

"This  is  the  worst  time,"  said  Mr.  Beck,  after  a  few  prelimi- 
nary words,  "for  nations  in  their  collective  capacity  to  construct 
or  reconstruct  human  society  upon  broad  and  abstract  principles, 
and  no  more  unfortunate  time  could  have  been  selected  than  the 
present  for  laying  down  rules  for  the  governance  of  society. 

"I  say  that  for  two  or  three  reasons :  First,  I  would  have  you 
observe  that  the  abstract  and  the  concrete  in  these  problems  are 
so  interwoven  that  it  is  difficult  to  separate  them,  and  the  con- 
crete is  of  such  urgent  importance,  that  we  can  well  confine  our- 
selves to  that  feature  for  the  present.  Of  course,  I  am  not  saying 
to  a  distinguished  body  of  lawyers  that  the  abstract  may  not  be 
taken  up  in  future  days  which  may  some  day  dawn.  I  am  refer- 
ring now  to  the  collective  effort  of  organized  nations  to  do  that 
which  we  are  now  discussing  in  the  abstract. 

"In  the  first  place,  to  use  an  epigram  which  will  always  live 
in  our  language,  an  epigram  of  a  late  President,  President  Cleve- 
land. 'It  is  a  condition  and  not  a  theory  which  confronts  us.'  I 
hope  I  will  not  be  accused,  on  the  other  hand,  of  entering  into  a 
controversial  theme,  when  I  say  that  in  my  opinion  the  greatest 
disservice  that  the  United  States  has  done  in  this  great  world's 
crisis,  next  to  its  unfortunate  neutrality  for  three  years,  is  the 
fact  that  it  prematurely  negotiated  peace  proposals,  and  included 
in  those  peace  proposals  certain  abstract  points,  which  for  the 
moment  confused  the  issues  and  made  impossible  the  satisfactory 
adjustments  of  the  concrete  problem. 

"When  this  war  ended  on  Nov.  n  there  was  one  great  urgent 
task  before  the  nations  of  the  world.  It  was  to  make  peace  with 
Germany,  to  make  it  quickly,  justly,  and  to  allow  nothing  to  di- 
vert or  confuse;  and  above  all  to  allow  nothing  which  would 

1  From  address  by  James  M.  Beck,  at  the  annual  dinner  of  the  New 
York  State  Bar  Association,  January  18,  19 19.  Reprinted  from  the  New 
York  Times,  January  19,  19 19. 


A    LEAGUE    OF    NATIONS  285 

divide  the  councils  of  the  allied  powers,  who,  having  been  reason- 
ably united  on  the  field  of  battle,  found  it  well  to  be  reasonably 
united  in  the  hour  of  peace. 

"The  world  outside  of  our  own  rich  country  was  bankrupt. 
That  is  a  plain  statement  of  fact.  England  has  $40,000,000,000  of 
indebtedness.  Its  service  alone  is  $2,000,000,000  a  year.  It  is  liv- 
ing on  its  capital  today,  paying  its  interest  on  its  loans  out  of 
moneys  it  borrows,  and  that  means  only  one  thing. 

"France  has  a  debt  of  $35,000,000,000.  Its  expenditures  be- 
fore the  war  amounted  to  $1,000,000,000  annually.  I  do  not  know 
how  much  was  allocated  to  the  army  and  how  much  to  the  navy, 
but  at  least  $500,000,000  was.  If  the  French  Army  were  demobil- 
ized and  disbanded  tomorrow  and  the  navy  was  put  in  the  docks, 
France  would  still  have  to  raise  $500,000,000,  plus  $2,000,000,000  to 
pay  the  service  and  the  loan. 

"If  that  be  true  of  two  great  nations  like  England  and  France, 
you  can  well  imagine  somewhat  the  conditions  in  Italy.  There- 
fore, from  the  standpoint  of  our  allies,  it  was  essential  that  peace 
should  be  restored,  that  the  wheels  of  industry  should  move 
again,  and  that  in  that  period  following  the  restoration  of  busi- 
ness, negotiations  could  be  acted  "upon  that  would  enable  subse- 
quently these  problems  of  League  of  Nations  and  the  future 
codification  of  the  law  of  nations,  and  freedom  of  the  seas  to  be 
taken  up. 

"There  is  this  second  reason:  That  every  day's  delay  means 
that  the  problems  in  Germany  and  Russia  become  increasingly 
more  difficult.  It  is  absolutely  impossible  to  construct  society  on 
any  foundation  unless  there  is  a  stable  Government  formed  in 
Germany ;  and  at  the  time  when  the  armistice  was  declared,  when 
all  the  German  States  except  Prussia  withdrew  and  were  dis- 
posed to  form  other  groups,  it  would  have  been  easy  then  for 
the  Allies  to  have  extended  a  helping  hand — not  out  of  considera- 
tion for  Germany,  but  for  the  benefit  of  the  Allies  themselves. 

"It  was  essential  that  Germany  should  have  a  stable  Govern- 
ment with  which,  in  the  broadest  spirit  of  liberality,  the  allied  na- 
tions could  treat.  Meantime  the  streets  of  Berlin  and  of  Petro- 
grad  are  running  with  blood,  while  we  are  paltering  with  'freedom 
of  the  seas'  and  'League  of  Nations'  and  all  manner  of  abstrac- 
tions, which  years  from  now  may  be  translated  into  practice. 

"It  is  absolutely  the  same  condition  prevailing  as  there  is  in 


286  SELECTED    ARTICLES 

a  mining  camp,  where  anarchy  has  gone  from  end  to  the  other, 
when  houses  are  in  flames  and  men  are  being  shot  down  on  all 
sides — that  would  not  be  a  time  to  meet  to  consider  the  govern- 
ance of  that  section  of  the  country.  But  the  first  thing  to  do 
there  would  be  for  law  to  prevail  and  peace  to  become  established, 
and  then  when  the  blood  is  out  of  their  eyes,  possibly  other  prob- 
lems could  come  to  the  surface. 

"The  people  of  these  allied  countries  are  not  in  any  mood  at 
this  time  to  discuss  these  abstract  questions.  If  you  had  been 
there,  as  I  have  been,  and  seen  them,  as  I  was  privileged  to  see 
them'  at  the  hour  of  the  armistice,  you  would  understand  why 
they  are  not.  They  are  coming  out  of  a  state  of  stupor;  they 
have  been  sandbagged  almost  into  insensibility  by  the  greatest 
terrors  of  recorded  history;  France  and  England  have  lost,  each 
of  them,  one  million  in  dead.  The  two  nations  together  have 
put  under  the  sod  more  than  the  total  number  of  those  we  sent 
over.  Over  two  million  have  been  buried  by  Great  Britain  and 
France,  not  to  speak  of  the  almost  innumerable  hosts  of  casual- 
ties. 

"That  is  not  what  the  press  representatives  tell  you.  They 
tell  you  there  is  a  profound  agitation  for  the  League  of  Nations. 
I  tell  you  it  is  not  so.  There  may  be  some  such  thing  among  the 
advanced  Socialists.  There  is  a  great  demand  for  the  League  of 
Nations — there  is  in  England  a  party  opposed  to  Lloyd  George, 
who  have  it  as  a  battle  cry,  and  many  men  in  the  Church  are  at- 
tracted by  the  visions  of  a  perpetual  peace,  forgetful  that  when 
we  had  The  Hague  Convention  those  principles  were  adopted  in 
the  form  of  treaty,  and  Great  Britain  and  France  were  left  to 
vindicate  those  principles. 

"I  say  that,  except  for  the  people  whom  I  have  mentioned 
and  the  obvious  policy  of  many  leading  officials  who  support  it 
because  it  is  believed  to  be  pleasing  to  the  people  of  the  United 
States,  there  is  no  real  interest  in  England  in  the  League  of 
Nations  at  the  present  time. 

"I  believe  that  to  be  true  also  of  France,  and  simple  because 
when  a  man  or  a  nation  has  been  profoundly  disillusioned,  when 
they  have  found  that  treaties  are  scraps  of  paper,  that  great  and 
enlightened  civilized  nations  have  and  will  forget  their  obliga- 
tions as  members  of  society,  and  forget  or  ignore  their  specific 
covenants,  then  under  those  circumstances  you  cannot  get  those 


A    LEAGUE    OF    NATIONS  287 

people  wildly  interested  in  the  new  plan,  which,  as  far  as  I  can 
judge  from  their  specific  provisions,  does  not  rise  above  the  dig- 
nity of  The  Hague  Conference,  and  is  far  less  impressive  as  a 
moral  authority. 

"Today  the  League  of  Nations  would  find  the  world  not 
merely  torn  with  strife  and  hatred,  hatred  not  likely  to  die  for 
many  generations,  and  by  nations  whose  interests  are  so  con- 
flicting it  would  make  any  general  consensus  of  opinion  one  of 
extraordinary  difficulty. 

"Our  Government  has  a  dominant  position  in  Paris  at  this 
time  because  we  are  considered  the  greatest  nation  in  the  world. 
English  publicists  see  the  looming  mountain  mass  of  this  great 
republic,  and  they  know  this  republic  will  exercise  a  position  of 
enormous  influence  in  the  future  of  the  world:  and,  therefore,  I 
know  after  talking  with  them  that  apart  from  the  profound  grati- 
tude and  appreciation  for  what  they  have  done  in  the  world,  and 
on  the  broadest  grounds  of  public  policy,  they  will  make  any  con- 
cession that  seems  to  be  demanded  by  the  United  States.  And, 
therefore,  the  United  States  has  this  position  of  unique  power." 


A  LEAGUE  OF  NATIONS1 

William  D.  Guthrie,  whose  address  opened  the  discussion  of 
the  League  of  Nations,  opposed  any  yielding  of  independence 
by  the  United  States  or  other  countries  to  any  general  federation, 
and  said  that  no  international  military  power  was  required  to 
discipline  nations  which  might  in  the  future  attempt  to  do  what 
Germany  did  in  1914.  Denying  the  assertion  that  the  events  of 
the  war  showed  treaties  and  international  law  to  be  without 
value,  he  continued: 

"The  present  war  and  its  victory  have  vindicated  the  obliga- 
tion of  treaties  and  of  the  plighted  faith  and  honor  of  nations 
infinitely  more  than  ever  before.  In  fact,  the  vindication  of  the 
sanction  and  value  of  treaties  has  been  more  emphatic.  Witness 
valiant  and  noble  France,  without  a  moment  of  hesitation  or  fear, 
facing  the  awful  catastrophe  of  war  and  national  ruin  in  order  to 

1  From  address  by  William  D.  Guthrie  at  the  annual  dinner  of  the  New 
York  State  Bar  Association,  January  18,  19 19.  Reprinted  from  the  New 
York  Times,  January   19,   19 19. 


288  SELECTED    ARTICLES 

keep  her  treaty  with  Russia.  Witness  heroic  and  sublime  Bel- 
gium, braving  destruction  by  and  slavery  to  the  savage  and 
brutal  Germans  in  order  to  keep  her  treaty  obligation  to  main- 
tain neutrality." 

After  a  tribute  to  the  "grandeur,  nobility,  and  sublimity"  of 
England's  refusal  to  break  faith  in  an  old  pledge  to  maintain  the 
neutrality  of  Belgium,  he  said : 

"The  truth  is  that  the  sanctity  and  force  of  treaties  are  today 
more  firmly  established  than  at  any  time  in  the  history  of  the 
world,  that  treaty  obligations  are  more  sacred  and  binding  than 
ever  before,  and  that  we  Americans  can  safely  continue  to  rely 
upon  their  effectiveness  in  our  dealings  and  intercourse  with 
other  civilized  nations." 

After  urging  great  caution  on  the  part  of  this  country  in  en- 
tering into  any  league,  and  emphasizing  the  duty  of  the  Senate 
to  exercise  its  independent  judgment  on  any  plan  vitally  affecting 
America's  future,  he  went  on: 

"Favoring,  as  I  believe  most  of  us  do,  the  general  idea  of  a 
League  of  Nations,  which  shall  settle  important  questions  of 
international  law  and  establish  a  permanent  court  of  arbitral  jus- 
tice, and  recognizing  the  probable  necessity  of  such  a  league  in 
some  form,  let  us  nevertheless  trust  that  its  final  terms  will  not 
impair  the  sovereignty  and  independence  of  the  nation,  and,  above 
all  other  considerations,  that  it  will  not  compel  us  to  go  to  war 
for  any  cause  unless  the  Congress  shall  at  the  time  determine  on 
the  merits  of  the  actual  question  that  a  matter  of  paramount  na- 
tional duty,  honor,  or  interest  is  involved  sufficient  in  its  judg- 
ment to  justify  war  and  the  sending  of  our  soldiers  and  sailors 
if  need  be  to  the  ends  of  the  earth  to  fight  and  to  die. 

"The  formulation  of  the  terms  of  this  League  of  Nations 
may  turn  out  to  be  very  much  more  important  to  our  vital  in- 
terests and  welfare  than  the  framing  of  any  State  constitution  or, 
indeed,  the  Federal  Constitution  itself,  for  it  may  irrevocably 
commit  our  national  honor  to  ruinous  policies,  duties,  and  obli- 
gations. Certainly  this  association  would  treat  as  foolhardiness 
and  recklessness  in  the  extreme  a  proposition  to  approve  a  State 
constitution  of  which  most  of  its  provisions  were  as  yet  undis- 
closed and  unformulated.  When  the  terms  of  the  proposed 
League  of  Nations  have  been  finally  announced,  the  members 
of  this  association  can  consider  them  with  the  care  they  demand, 


A    LEAGUE    OF   NATIONS  289 

and,  if  necessary,  can  call  a  special  meeting  at  which  the  proposi- 
tions can  be  thoroughly  and  exhaustively  analyzed  and  debated. 

"In  the  meantime,  it  is  hardly  necessary  for  us  precipately  to 
approve  the  mere  theory  or  principle  of  a  League  of  Nations  in 
the  abstract,  and  any  such  hasty  action  on  our  part  at  the  present 
crucial  time  is  certain  to  be  misinterpreted  as  favoring  some  plan 
or  other  called  a  League  of  Nations  which  is  not  before  us  and 
of  which  we  may  have  little  or  no  definite  conception. 

"In  conclusion,  I  would  venture  to  add  a  word  on  the  subject 
of  internationalism,  which  in  theory  is  so  attractive  to  some, 
but  which  in  practice,  as  many  believe,  left  France  and  England 
unprepared  for  war  in  1914  and  on  the  verge  of  disaster.  It 
seems  to  me  that  not  a  step  should  be  taken  committing  or  cove- 
nanting our  country  which  shall  tend  toward  internationalism  in 
the  sense  that  its  most  persistent  advocates  conceive  it,  or  which 
shall  tend  in  any  degree  to  diminish  what  we  know  as  nationalism 
or  independence  in  contradistinction  to  internationalism  or  the 
interdependence  of  nations. 

"We  are  altogether  too  proud  of  the  display  of  nationalism 
and  peace  throughout  the  world  at  whatever  cost  of  American 
life  and  treasure.  But  before  we  assume  any  such  extensive 
and  far-reaching  obligation  and  duty,  and  thereby  mortgage  our 
future  and  the  future  of  our  children,  it  is  certainly  not  too 
much  to  demand  great  caution  and  deliberation  in  order  that 
the  nation  shall  not  be  committed  to  any  particular  League  of 
Nations  until  it  has  been  fully  advised  as  to  its  terms  and  pro- 
visions and  has  had  full  opportunity  to  study  an,d  discuss  them 
and  weigh  their  obligations.  At  least,  due  opportunity  should  be 
first  afforded  our  representatives  in  the  Senate  to  give  their  ad- 
vice and  consent,  for  we  are  still  essentially  a  representative 
form  of  republican  Government  and  the  Constitution  still  regu- 
lates the  treaty-making  power." 


290  SELECTED    ARTICLES 

GENERAL  SMUTS'S  PLAN  FOR  A  LEAGUE 
OF  NATIONS1 

Paris,  January  13. — Many  plans  for  a  league  of  nations  have 
been  submitted  and  discussed  already,  and  while  the  differences 
between  the  French,  British,  and  American  conceptions  are  vital, 
all  recognize  the  necessity  of  doing  the  utmost  to  prevent  wars 
in  future.  While  President  Wilson  was  in  England,  Mr.  Lloyd 
George  gave  him  a  copy  of  the  memorandum  prepared  by  Gen. 
Smuts,  of  South  Africa,  and  a  member  of  the  British  Cabinet, 
who  has  worked  out  a  detailed  scheme  which  has  the  backing 
of  the  British  Government.  Mr.  Wilson  is  sympathetic  with 
many  ideas  in  the  Smuts  plan,  but  the  indications  are  that  the 
American  delegation  will  favor  an  even  more  comprehensive 
formula. 

I  have  just  read  a  copy  of  the  Smuts  plan,  which  covers 
twenty  printed  pages,  to  be  published  in  full  soon,  and  while  in 
no  sense  can  it  be  said  that  any  of  the  peace  delegations  have 
finally  adopted  it,  nevertheless  the  ideas  contained  reflected  the 
advanced  thought  prevailing  in  British  minds  concerning  future 
international  intercourse.  Before  discussing  the  trend  of  opin- 
ion in  American  quarters  and  the  crystallization  of  ideas  among 
our  delegates  I  shall  present  briefly  the  main  points  of  the 
Smuts  plan  as  showing  the  American  public  how  far  British 
democracy  is  willing  to  go  to  make  a  new  world.  Gen.  Smuts 
admits  that  the  plan  must  be  subject  to  discussion,  even  to  radical 
changes,  but  suggests  as  a  tentative  programme  for  the  Peace 
Conference  the  following : 

(1.)  That  in  the  vast  multiplicity  of  territorial,  economic,  and 
other  problems  with  which  the  Peace  Conference  will  find  itself 
confronted  it  should  look  upon  setting  up  a  league  of  nations 
as  its  primary  basic  task  and  as  supplying  a  necessary  organ  by 
which  most  of  those  problems  can  find  their  only  solution.  In- 
deed, the  conference  should  look  upon  itself  as  the  first  or  pre- 
liminary meeting  of  the  league  intended  to  work  out  its  organiza- 
tion, functions,  and  programme. 

(2.)  That  in  so  far,  at  any  rate,  as  the  peoples  and  territories 

1  By  David  Lawrence,  in  the  New  York  Evening  Post,  January  13,  19 19. 


A    LEAGUE    OF    NATIONS  291 

formerly  belonging  to  Russia,  Austria-Hungary,  and  Turkey  are 
concerned,  the  league  should  be  considered  as  reversionary  in 
the  most  general  sense  and  as  clothed  with  the  right  of  ultimate 
disposal  in  accordance  with  certain  fundamental  principles.  The 
reversion  to  the  league  of  nations  should  be  substituted  for  any 
policy  of  national  annexation. 

(3.)  These  principles  are  that  there  shall  be  no  annexation  of 
any  of  these  territories  to  any  of  the  victorious  states,  and  that 
in  the  future  government  of  these  territories  and  peoples  the 
•rule  of  self-determination  or  consent  of  the  governed  to  their 
form  of  government  shall  be  fairly  and  reasonably  applied. 

(4.)  That  any  authority,  control,  or  administration  which  may 
be  necessary  in  respect  to  these  territories  and  peoples  other 
than  their  own  self-determined  autonomy  shall  be  the  exclusive 
function  of  and  shall  be  vested  in  the  league  of  nations  and 
exercised  by  or  on  behalf  of  it. 

(5.)  That  it  shall  be  lawful  for  the  league  of  nations  to  dele- 
gate its  authority,  control,  or  administration,  in  respect  of  any 
people  or  territory,  to  some  other  state  whom  it  may  appoint  as 
its  agent  or  mandatary,  but  wherever  possible  the  ,  agent  or 
mandatary  so  appointed  shall  be  nominated  or  approved  by  the 
autonomous  people  or  territory. 

(6.)  That  any  degree  of  authority,  control,  or  administration 
exercised  by  a  mandatary  state  shall  in  each  case  be  laid  down 
by  the  league  in  a  special  act  or  charter  which  shall  reserve  to 
it  complete  power  of  ultimate  control  and  supervision,  as  well  as 
the  right  of  appeal  to  it  from  or  by  the  people  affected,  against 
any  gross  breach  of  mandate  by  the  mandatary  state. 

(7.)  That  the  mandatary  state  shall  in  each  case  be  bound 
to  maintain  the  policy  of  the  open  door  or  equal  economic  oppor- 
tunity for  all,  and  shall  form  no  military  forces  beyond  the 
standard  laid  down  by  the  league  for  purposes  of  internal  police. 

(8.)  That  no  state  arising  from  the  old  empires  shall  be  recog- 
nized or  admitted  into  the  league  unless  on  condition  that  its 
military  forces  and  armaments  shall  conform  to  the  standard 
laid  down  by  the  league  in  respect  of  it  from  time  to  time. 

(9.)  That  as  a  successor  to  empires  the  league  of  nations  will 
directly,  and  without  power  of  delegation,  watch  over  the  re- 
lations inter  se  of  new  independent  states  arising  from  the  break- 
up of  those  empires,  and  will  regard  as  a  very  special  task  the 


292  SELECTED    ARTICLES 

duty  of  conciliating  and  composing  differences  among  them  with 
a  view  to  the  maintenance  of  good  order  and  general  peace. 

(10.)  The  constitution  of  the  league  will  be  that  of  a  perma- 
nent conference  among  the  Governments  of  the  constituent  states 
for  the  purpose  of  joint  international  action  in  certain  defined 
respects  and  will  not  derogate  from  the  independence  of  those 
states.  It  will  consist  of  a  general  conference,  a  council,  and 
courts  of  arbitration  and  conciliation. 

(n.)  The  general  conference  in  which  all  the  constituent 
states  will  have  equal  voting  power  and  will  meet  periodically  to. 
discuss  matters  submitted  to  it  by  the  council.  These  matters 
will  be  general  measures  of  international  law  or  arrangements  or 
general  proposals  for  the  limitations  of  armaments  of  securing 
world  peace  or  any  other  general  resolutions  the  discussion  of 
which  by  the  conference  is  desired  by  the  council  before  they  are 
forwarded  for  approval  to  the  constituent  Governments.  Any 
resolution  passed  by  the  conference  will  have  the  effect  of  recom- 
mendations to  the  national  Governments  or  Parliaments. 

(12.)  The  council  will  be  the  executive  committee  of  the 
league  and  will  consist  of  the  Prime  Ministers  or  Foreign  Secre- 
taries or  other  authoritative  representatives  of  the  great  Powers, 
together  with  representatives  drawn  in  rotation  from  two  panels 
of  the  middle  Powers  and  minor  states  respectively  in  such  a 
way  that  the  great  Powers  shall  have  a  bare  majority.  A  mi- 
nority of  three  or  more  can  veto  any  action  or  resolution  in 
council. 

(13.)  The  council  will  meet  periodically,  and  will,  in  addition, 
hold  annual  meetings  of  the  Prime  Ministers  or  Foreign  Secre- 
taries for  general  interchange  of  views  and  for  review  of  the 
general  policies  of  the  league.  It  will  appoint  a  permanent  secre- 
tariat and  staff,  and  will  appoint  joint  committees  for  the  study 
and  coordination  of  international  questions  with  which  the  coun- 
cil deals  or  questions  likely  to  lead  to  international  disputes.  It 
will  also  take  the  necessary  steps  for  keeping  up  a  proper  liaison 
not  only  with  the  foreign  offices  of  the  constituent  Governments, 
but  also  with  the  mandataries  acting  in  behalf  of  the  league  in 
various  parts  of  the  world. 

(14.)  Its  function  will  be  to  take  executive  action  or  control 
in  regard  to  the  matters  set  forth  in  the  first  nine  points  and 
formulate   for  the   approval   of   the   Governments   the   general 


A    LEAGUE    OF   NATIONS  293 

measures  of  international  law  or  arrangements  for  limitation  of 
armaments  or  promotion  of  world  peace. 

(15.)  That  all  the  states  represented  in  the  Peace  Conference 
shall  agree  to  the  abolition  of  conscription  or  compulsory  mili- 
tary service,  and  their  future  defence  forces  shall  consist  of 
militia  or  volunteers  whose  numbers  and  training  shall  after  ex- 
pert inquiry  be  fixed  by  the  council  of  the  league. 

(16.)  That  while  the  limitation  of  armaments  in  a  general 
sense  is  impracticable,  the  council  of  the  league  shall  determine 
what  direct  military  equipment  and  armament  is  fair  and  reason- 
able in  respect  of  the  scale  of  forces  laid  down  under  point 
fifteen,  and  that  the  limits  fixed  by  the  council  shall  not  be  ex- 
ceeded without  its  permission. 

(17.)  All  factories  for  the  production  of  direct  weapons  of 
war  shall  be  nationalized,  and  their  production  shall  be  subject 
to  inspection  by  officers  of  the  council,  and  that  council  shall 
be  furnished  periodically  with  returns  of  the  imports  and  exports 
of  munitions  of  war  into  or  from  the  territories  of  members 
and  as  far  as  possible  into  or  from  other  countries. 

(18.)  That  the  peace  treaty  shall  provide  that  the  members 
of  the  league  shall  bind  themselves  jointly  and  severally  not  to 
go  to  war  w;th  one  another  without  previously  submitting  the 
matter  in  dispute  to  arbitration  or  inquiry  by  the  council  of  the 
league,  and  not  before  there  has  been  an  award  or  a  report  by 
the  council,  and  not  even  then  as  against  a  member  which  com- 
plies with  the  award  or  recommendation  if  any  is  made  by  the 
council  in  its  report. 

(19.)  The  peace  treaty  shall  provide  that  if  any  member  of 
the  league  breaks  its  covenant  under  point  18  it  shall  ipse  facto 
become  at  war  with  all  the  other  members  of  the  league,  which 
shall  subject  it  to  a  complete  economic  and  financial  boycott,  in- 
cluding the  severance  of  all  trade  and  financial  relations  and 
prohibition  of  all  intercourse  between  the  subjects  of  the  nations 
comprising  the  league  and  the  subjects  of  the  covenant-breaking 
state,  and  prevention  as  far  as  possible  of  the  subjects  of  the 
covenant-breaking  state  from  having  any  commercial  or  financial 
intercourse  with  the  subjects  of  any  other  state  whether  a  mem- 
ber of  the  league  or  not.  While  all  members  of  the  league  are 
obliged  to  take  the  above  measures,  it  shall  be  left  to  the  coun- 
cil to  decide  what  effective  naval  or  military  force  the  members 


294  SELECTED    ARTICLES 

shall  contribute,  and  whether  it  is  advisable  to  absolve  smaller 
members  of  the  league  from  making  such  contribution.  The 
covenant-breaking  state  shall  after  restoration  of  peace  be  sub- 
ject to  perpetual  disarmament  and  to  the  peaceful  regime  estab- 
lished for  new  states  under  point  8. 

(20.)  The  peace  treaty  should  further  provide  that  if  a  dis- 
pute should  arise  among  any  members  of  the  league  as  to  the 
interpretation  of  the  treaty  or  as  to  any  question  of  international 
law  or  fact  which  if  established  would  constitute  a  breach  of  any 
international  obligation,  the  nature  and  measure  of  reparation  to 
be  made,  and  if  such  dispute  cannot  be  settled  by  negotiation  the 
members  bind  themselves  to  submit  it  to  arbitration  and  to  carry 
out  any  award  or  decision  which  may  be  rendered. 

(21.)  If  on  any  ground  it  proves  impracticable  to  refer  such 
dispute  to  arbitration,  either  party  to  the  dispute  may  apply  to 
the  council  to  take  the  matter  into  consideration.  The  council 
shall  give  notice  of  the  application  to  the  other  party  and  shall 
make  the  necessary  arrangements  for  hearing  the  dispute.  The 
council  shall  ascertain  the  facts  with  regard  to  the  dispute  and 
make  recommendations  based  on  its  merits  and  calculated  to 
secure  a  just  and  lasting  settlement.  The  other  members  of  the 
league  shall  place  at  its  disposal  all  information  which  bears  on 
the  dispute.  The  council  shall  do  its  utmost  by  mediation  and 
conciliation  to  induce  the  disputants  to  agree  to  a  peaceful  settle- 
ment. Recommendations  shall  be  addressed  to  the  disputants, 
and  shall  not  have  the  force  of  decisions.  If  either  party  threat- 
ens to  go  to  war  in  spite  of  the  recommendations,  the  council 
shall  publish  them.  If  the  council  fails  to  arrive  at  any  recom- 
mendations, either  the  majority  or  minority  in  the  council  may 
publish  statements  of  their  respective  recommendations,  and  such 
publication  shall  not  be  regarded  as  an  unfriendly  act  by  the 
disputants. 

Provision  is  also  made  for  inquiry  and  recommendations  in 
disputes  outside  of  the  league  with  an  economic  and  financial 
boycott,  and  even  military  and  naval  measures,  to  be  used  against 
the  recalcitrant  state  if  the  league  so  desires. 

The  whole  exposition  of  Gen.  Smuts  is  described  by  Amer- 
icans as  one  of  the  most  statesmanlike  papers  ever  written.  It 
is  really  necessary  to  read  the  long  discussion  accompanying 
and  elucidating  the  plan  in  order  to  do  full  justice  to  the  con- 


A    LEAGUE    OF    NATIONS  295 

tentions.  While  Gen.  Smuts  realizes  that  much  is  still  to  be 
desired  in  the  way  of  international  reform,  his  plan  is  prompted 
by  the  belief  that  it  is  as  far  as  it  is  practical  to  go  at  present. 
He  hopes  for  yearly  changes  in  the  direction  of  the  end  desired 
by  all. 

While  no  one  is  in  a  position  to  say  authoritatively  what  the 
opinion  of  the  American  delegation  is  on  the  plan  outlined  above, 
it  is  known  that  the  Americans  think  it  is  not  sufficiently  strong 
in  its  provisions  for  the  prevention  of  war.  A  belief  prevails 
among  them  that  all  disputes  should  be  submitted  to  compulsory 
arbitration  or  inquiry,  and  that  under  no  circumstances  should 
the  league  consider  an  arbitrary  recourse  to  hostilities.  Every 
nation  which  went  to  war,  it  is  said,  should  be  in  the  position 
of  defying  the  recommendations  of  the  league,  and  that  would 
justify  the  imposition  of  an  economic  and  financial  boycott  and 
penalties. 

The  views  prevalent  in  American  quarters  would  not  mean 
the  yielding  of  sovereignty  in  any  case,  as  the  recommendations 
of  the  league  of  nations  would  be  submitted  to  our  Congress, 
which  alone  is  constitutionally  empowered  to  declare  war.  Our 
policy  evidently  would  be  one  of  permitting  freedom  of  action 
to  the  American  people  at  all  times,  but  with  a  pledge  that  we 
submit  the  facts  and  recommendations  of  the  league  to  the  Amer- 
ican Congress,  together  with  the  opinion  of  the  executive  branch 
of  our  Government. 

All  these  ideals  are  being  discussed,  and  while  no  agreement 
has  yet  been  reached,  the  harmonization  of  differences  is  con- 
sidered by  the  principal  men  in  the  various  delegations  to  be 
progressing  satisfactorily.  Lord  Robert  Cecil  is  said  to  be  at 
work  on  a  plan  of  his  own  with  points  similar  to  those  of  Gen. 
Smuts  as  a  basis.  French  writers  and  experts  are  understood  to 
be  sympathetic  to  the  Smuts  ideas  also.  Hence  the  importance 
of  presenting  to  American  readers  the  Smuts  plan  as  an  indica- 
tion of  the  nature  of  the  discussions  now  before  the  Peace  Con- 
ference. 


2Q6  >     SELECTED    ARTICLES 

BOURGEOIS    OUTLINES    LEAGUE    OF 
NATIONS  " 

Paris,  January  13. — (Havas). — Leon  Bourgeois,  former  Pre- 
mier and  the  French  authority  on  a  League  of  Nations,  said 
to-day  that  it  had  been  agreed  upon  with  the  French  Govern- 
ment that  the  French  Association  of  a  League  of  Nations  would 
endeavor  to  reach  an  agreement  as  to  procedure  with  similar  as- 
sociations, especially  in  Great  Britain  and  the  United  States.  The 
former  Premier  outlined  the  following  plan : 

"(1.)  The  issuance,  before  the  beginning  of  peace  negotia- 
tions, of  a  solemn  declaration  by  the  Allies  fixing  the  fundamen- 
tal rules  of  the  organization  of  a  League  of  Nations  with  the 
assurance  of  the  immediate  observance  of  the  rules  among  them- 
selves. 

(2.)  The  peace  treaty  shall  contain  the  obligation  of  compul- 
sory arbitration  and  limitation  of  armaments. 

"Third. — Immediately  after  the  signing  of  peace  a  universal 
conference  shall  be  called  to  fix  the  details  of  a  league  of  nations. 
The  conference  would  look  into  the  rights  of  each  nation,  and 
would  consider  what  should  be  done  to  a  state  resisting  the  de- 
cisions of  the  league.  It  would  also  take  measures  concerning 
any  state  not  belonging  to  the  league  and  which  caused  trouble 
by  violence.  The  project  foresees,  in  order  to  compel  the  sub- 
mission of  such  a  state  or  states,  the  constitution  of  an 
armed  force  exercising  international  control  and  the  establish- 
ment of  diplomatic,  juridical,  and  economic  measures  tending  to 
isolate  the  rebellious  state  and  compelling  it  to  depend  upon  its 
own  resources." 

Germany,  M.  Bourgeois  added,  would  have  to  undergo  not 
only  a  political  revolution,  but  a  moral  one.  "Her  very  soul  has 
to  be  changed,"  he  said.  In  addition,  Germany  must  give  guar- 
antees of  a  military  character,  make  reparations,  and  punish 
those  who  have  violated  all  laws  of  humanity.  Until  that  is  ac- 
complished, Germany  must  be  compelled  to  observe  all  the  rules 
of  international  control  to  which  other  nations  will  have  agreed 
voluntarily. 

1  From  the  New  York  Evening  Post,  January  13,  1919. 


A    LEAGUE    OF    NATIONS  297 


LEAGUE  OF  NATIONS  OUTLINED  BY  LANE  1 

An  address  on  the  League  of  Nations  made  yesterday  by 
Franklin  K.  Lane,  Secretary  of  the  Interior,  at  a  luncheon  of  the 
Merchants'  Association  at  the  Hotel  Astor,  took  on  especial  sig- 
nificance to  the  business  men  because  it  went  into  considerable 
detail  as  to  what  the  American  conception  of  such  a  league 
should  be.  Secretary  Lane  was  careful  to  say  that  he  had  no 
knowledge  "of  the  propositions  that  are  made  in  Paris."  The 
Chairman  was  Lewis  E.  Pierson,  First  Vice  President  of  the 
association. 

After  pursuing  the  line  of  argument  that  war  does  not  pay, 
Secretary  Lane  explained  that  a  League  of  Nations  might  or- 
ganize two  bodies — a  council  to  formulate  a  body  of  interna- 
tional law  and  a  court  to  decide  on  violations  of  compact  be- 
tween the  nations. 

"Now,  international  law  is  filmy,  gauzy,  founded  upon  pre- 
cedent and  without  certainty,  decision,  or  definiteness,"  he  said. 
"Suppose  that  council  had  the  power  to  take  into  its  own  hands 
an  effort,  first  to  inquire  as  to  what  the  trouble  between  nations 
may  be ;  second,  to  make  an  effort  at  conciliation ;  third,  to  bring 
about  arbitration  if  possible;  fourth,  to  call  upon  the  nations  to 
encompass  the  delinquent  and  make  its  social  and  economic  life 
impossible,  and  fifth,  as  a  last  resort,  to  bring  about  war. 

"Now,  the  first  thing  that  council  would  do  would  be  to  de- 
clare upon  paper  just  what  the  rules  are  that  govern  as  be- 
tween those  nations  which  entered  into  that  compact.  First,  the 
nations  would  agree  upon,  not  the  machinery,  but  the  principles — 
what  the  law  is.  Then  there  would  be  established  a  court  that 
could  decide  whether  there  had  been  a  violation  of  the  compact 
that  had  been  entered  into  by  all  the  nations.  That  would  not 
bind  us  if  we  went  into  it  to  accept  anything  except  that  which 
was  brought  back  and  which  we  approved  of. 

"First,  then,  a  council  which  would  declare  what  the  rules 
of  the  game  were,  and  we  do  not  know  what  the  rules  are  now ; 
second,  the  court,  that  could  enforce  those  rules.  That  is  not 
unreasonable,  that  is  not  visionary,  that  is  not  a  dream. 

"And  how  are  they  to  be  enforced  ? 

"First,  by  the  pressure  of  the  nations  of  the  world — and  don't 

1  From  the  New  York  Times,  January  17,   19 19.  * 


298  SELECTED    ARTICLES 

belittle  that.  In  these  days  of  newspapers  and  telegraphs,  of 
merchants'  associations,  of  all  the  thousand  organizations — and 
there  are  864,000  different  organizations  in  the  United  States  to- 
day— in  these  days  of  organizations,  when  opinion  can  be  quickly 
crystallized,  opinion  is  not  to  be  flouted  as  a  matter  of  coercion. 

"Then  as  a  body  the  inquiry  could  be  made  and  the  facts 
ascertained  upon  which  that  opinion  could  act;  then  if  arbitra- 
tion were  brought  about  the  parties  to  that  arbitration  would  be 
bound  to  submit,  in  the  first  instance,  all  of  their  questions  to 
arbitration  which  did  not  involve  national  independence,  did  not 
involve  their  integrity.  They  would  be  bound  to  submit  those 
questions  to  the  public  of  the  world,  and  before  that  public  they 
would  be  judged.  And  we  have  an  effort  that  can  be  made  this 
side  of  the  war.  Take  any  country  that  you  please  in  your 
mind  and  let  me  picture  what  might  happen  to  it: 

"We  could  put  a  circle  around  that  country,  cut  off  every 
postal  combination  so  that  no  letters  could  go  in  or  out,  cut 
off  every  bill  of  exchange,  cut  off  every  export,  if  you  please;  cut 
off  every  ship,  cut  the  railroad  lines  at  the  border,  cut  off  all 
diplomatic  communication,  isolate  that  nation;  and  there  is  not 
a  nation  that  ever  has  made  war  that  I  know  of  that  could  stand 
such  a  circle  of  iron  brought  around  it  by  the  combined  effort 
of  the  nations  of  the  world ;  and  if  that  nation,  in  violation  of  its 
pact,  does  attack  one  of  the  nations  within  this  league  or  this 
council,  this  association,  then  we  must  adopt  the  motto  of  the 
Three  Musketeers,  'One  for  all  and  all  for  one.'  But  there  is 
not  one  case  in  a  million  in  which  that  resort  would  be  forced 
upon  us. 

"I  do  not  know  what  may  come  out  of  Paris.  I  have  no 
knowledge  of  the  propositions  that  are  made  in  Paris.  But  I  do 
know  that  we  are  bound  to  champion  the  idea  of  a  League  of 
Nations,  of  an  association,  as  the  President  put  it — a  general  as- 
sociation of  nations  must  be  formed  under  specific  covenants  for 
the  purpose  of  affording  mutual  guarantees  of  political  inde- 
pendence and  territorial  integrity  to  great  and  small  nations 
alike.  I  have  heard  it  said  that  under  any  such  league  or  any 
such  council  of  nations,  any  such  effort  at  international  co- 
operation, the  Monroe  Doctrine  would  be  scattered  to  the  winds. 
I  want  to  ask  you  to  read  that  line  of  the  President's,  and  see 
if  it  is  not  the  very  incarnation  of  the  Monroe  Doctrine  itself." 


A    LEAGUE    OF    NATIONS  299 


PEACE  LEAGUE  PLANS1 

Paris,  Jan.  19,  (Associated  Press.) — The  plans  for  a  League 
of  Nations  have  been  reduced  to  very  definite  form.  The  gen- 
eral indications  are  that  the  statesmen  of  the  principal  nations 
are  steadily  drawing  together  on  a  structure  which  will  have 
the  support  of  all,  the  informal  discussions  having  brought  the 
community  of  ideas  to  a  point  where  it  may  reasonably  be  ex- 
pected to  appear  soon  on  paper. 

It  is  understood  that  the  general  plan  which  is  now  most 
approved  in  substance  by  all  the  parties  concerned  rejects  the 
theory  of  the  super-sovereignty  of  an  international  police  force. 
It  also  contemplates  the  working  out,  as  the  development  of  the 
league  progresses,  of  the  most  delicate  question  of  all — disarma- 
ment— which  particularly  affects  the  British  Navy.  The  same 
principle,  it  is  proposed,  shall  apply  to  the  other  nations  associ- 
ated in  the  war  against  Germany. 

This  idea  is  founded  on  the  argument  that  no  nation  would 
dispose  of  instruments  by  which  it  expects  to  defend  itself  until 
it  has  been  demonstrated  that  the  forces  proposed  as  a  substitute 
will  be  efficient. 

In  the  opinion  of  international  lawyers  such  decisions  will 
remove  from  actual  settlement  by  the  Peace  Conference,  at  this 
sitting  at  least,  many  questions  on  which  complete  agreement 
might  not  be  expected  now,  but  upon  which  full  accord  seems 
probable  as  the  development  of  the  plans  for  a  League  of  Nations 
advances. 

Such  a  plan  will  delegate  to  various  commissions  and  commit- 
tees detailed  problems  which  shall  be  reported  with  recommen- 
dations to  the  league  itself.  The  probability  of  such  a  plan  being 
adopted  justifies  previous  forecasts  that  the  principal  accomplish- 
ments of  the  Peace  Conference,  as  it  now  sits  in  Paris,  "»will  be 
agreement  on  broad  general  principles,  leaving  the  details  to  be 
applied  in  accord  therewith,  and  the  making  of  a  preliminary 
peace  which  will  return  the  world  at  the  earliest  moment  possible 
to  its  normal  status. 

1  From  the  New  York  Times,  January  20,  19 19. 


THIS  BOOK  IS  DUE  ON  THE  LAST  DATE 
STAMPED  BELOW 


AN     INITIAL     FINE     OF     25      CENTS 

WILL  BE  ASSESSED  FOR  FAILURE  TO  RETURN 
THIS  BOOK  ON  THE  DATE  DUE.  THE  PENALTY 
WILL  INCREASE  TO  50  CENTS  ON  THE  FOURTH 
DAY  AND  TO  $1.00  ON  THE  SEVENTH  DAY 
OVERDUE. 


OCT    27  1932 
NOV  10  1932 


C(> 


%\ 


^ 


H* 


18Apr53U> 


NOV  1 2  ym 


K6950 


•*^ 


»4* 


LD  21-50m-8,-32 


ID       /  U  *l  DU 


UNIVERSITY  OF  CAWEORNIA  LIBRARY 


4'<&-  .Qp*y. 


